[topicmapmail] SAM question

[Jan Algermissen]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> 
> * jalgermissen@topicmapping.com
> |
> | What I understood from N0396 is that it is a property of the
> | information item and thus it is explcitly NOT a relationship. To me,
> | this design decision reflects the idea that the relationship between
> | an item (e.g. baseName item) and the topic that represents the type
> | is not recognized as a subject. Simply said: The authors of N0396
> | decided that no statements may be made about these relationship.
> |
> | Lars, does that make sense?
> 
> Yes, you've got it exactly right.

Duh...we agree - great! ;-)

> 
> You do use some rather specialized terminology that may not be known
> to everyone else, though. I'd say that the base name.[type] property
> has no identity, and so cannot be reified. I'm pretty sure that this
> is the same as what you mean when you say that it is not a
> relationship and that it cannot be a subject. Certainly we agree on
> your last sentence.

Ok, fine.

I'd like to try out the term "ontological commitment" for these kinds
of decisions an "Application Model" (here the "Standard Application Model")
makes. Somewhat along the lines:

"The SAM makes the ontological commitment that it does not recognize the
relationship between a topic and any of its base names as subjects but
instead defines them as (mere) properties".

In that sense then, an Application Model is essentially a set of
ontological commitments.

Comments on this?


Jan


> 
> --
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail

-- 
Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer	                  http://www.gooseworks.org