[topicmapmail] A to B is as C to D

[Peter P. Jones]

Try the joys of OpenThemicMaps :)

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<themicMap
   xmlns="http://purl.org/openthemic/openthemicmaps/1.0/"
   xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" >
 <themic id="_process">
  <name>
      <nameString>process</nameString>
  </name>
 </themic>
 <themic id="_stage">
  <name>
      <nameString>stage</nameString>
  </name>
 </themic>
 <themic id="_recognition">
   <ofType>
      <themicURI xlink:href="#_process" />
   </ofType>
  <name>
      <nameString>recognition</nameString>
  </name>
  <participant>
   <hasRole>
       <themicURI xlink:href="#_stage" />
   </hasRole>
   <themicURI xlink:href="#_applicationOfRecogCriteria" />
  </participant>
 </themic>
 <themic id="_applicationOfRecogCriteria">
  <name>
      <nameString>application of recognition criteria</nameString>
  </name>
 </themic>
</themicMap>

You could also make 'application of recognition criteria' ofType 
'stage' to set up the type relations as you seem to want, but in the 
above I've just left it that 'stage' is a role in the 'recognition-
process' that 'application...' fulfills.
The equivalent XTM would, I think, split the 'recognition' themic 
above into the recognition_association#1 topic reifying an 
association of type recognition in which 'application' plays the 
'stage' role.

HTH,
-- 
Peter
OpenThemicMaps http://purl.org/openthemic/ 

On 15 Aug 2003 at 19:43, Jamshyd F wrote:

> 
> Hi all
> I have the following topics:
> process, phase (stage), AND recognition, application of recognition
> criteria
> 
> Is there a construct in the topic maps whereby I can say  "application
> of recognition criteria" is a "stage" in the "process" of
> "recognition"? Or that "application of recognition criteria" to
> "recognition" is as "stage" is to "process"?
> 
> I already have a containment association and have stated in the topic
> map that "process" contains "stage(s)". I can use the same association
> for "recognition" etc but then the similarity to stage and process are
> not evident.
> 
> Best regards
> Jamshyd Fararooy
> 
>