[topicmapmail] Proposal: Extending the Role of Occurrence Elements

[Jan Algermissen]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> 
> * Jan Algermissen
> |
> | Right. Here is an example: [...]
> 
> Beware, however, that in this case the occurrence doesn't have any
> type at all, but its reifying topic has two occurrences.

How's that? Can you explain?

> 
> We've discussed this in the committee, and the consensus was that the
> type-instance relationship between an occurrence and its typing topic
> is different from that between a topic and its typing topic(s).

Huh?

Well, I am not aware of that discussion/consensus, but anyway, how can the
nature of the type-instance relationship depend on context? I think
class-instanceness is what it is.

Can you clarify?

Jan



 I
> actually think your SAM-in-RM definition worked that way, too, but I
> might be wrong.
> 
> And, again, this may do what the original poster wanted to do, of
> course, but it doesn't mean what it may seem to mean.
> 
> --
> 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