[topicmapmail] Regarding Facets / XTM Guide available

[Michel Biezunski]

I have put an XTM guide on the web at the
Infoloom web site. It can be found at
www.infoloom.com and then click on the
right navigation bar on Xtm guide.

There may still be formatting problems with
it. But I am interested to hear comments
about it.


Michel
===================================
Michel Biezunski
Coolheads Consulting
402 85th Street #5C
Brooklyn, New York 11209
Email:mb@coolheads.com
Web  :http://www.coolheads.com
Voice: (718) 921-0901
==================================



> -----Original Message-----
> From: topicmapmail-admin@infoloom.com
> [mailto:topicmapmail-admin@infoloom.com]On Behalf Of Kal Ahmed
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:04 AM
> To: Nikita Ogievetsky
> Cc: TopicMapMail
> Subject: Re: [topicmapmail] Regarding Facets
>
>
> I've already replied privately to Nikita on this one, but seeing as
> there was a request to keep this thread public...
>
> On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 05:40, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote:
> > Kal Ahmed wrote:
> > > I think this is the stumbling block. In XTM, an occurrence is defined
> > > as:
> > > "any information that is specified as being relevant to a given
> > > subject." [http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/#desc-occurrence]
> >
> > May be we should take this off-line...
> > Yes, according to the above definition, most people (me
> included) are using
> > occurrences to describe properties.
> Me too! And I think that we are right in doing so.
>
> > The problem with this is the difference between the name of <occurrence>
> > element and its semantics.
> > I.e. unless we rename <occurrence> into <relatedPieceOfInformation> ...
> > the name of the syntactical element does not correspond to its
> meaning...
> > (unless I need to brush-up my English of course :-))
> > And that's what I was really trying to say here.
> >
>
> I understand your position, the word 'occurrence' is potentially
> confusing. Of course as one of the founder members of TopicMaps.Org, you
> will know that this name has "historical" significance in that it ties
> directly to the name of the matching concept in ISO 13250.
>
> I would suggest that the problem lies not in the syntax, but in the
> specification and in the (lack of) tutorials that go with the syntax
> specification. I would also suggest that conversations like this are an
> important part of the education process that will hopefully result in
> fewer people being confused when they see <occurrence> in XTM syntax. So
> I would argue for more energy going toward explaining the syntax we have
> rather than changing it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
>