[topicmapmail] Two Models of Facets

[Kal Ahmed]

On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 18:39, Murray Altheim wrote:
> Murray Altheim wrote:
> > Okay, where are we? Continuing with this conversation...
> [...]
> 
> Gah! Sloppy! Sloppy! Sloppy! Head-in-basket! the *worst* thing one
> can do is mess up the syntax example! So, here's the fixed version
> with the added bonus that I've included the LTM 1.2 version, which
> is easier to read (new and improved!):
> 
> EXAMPLE:
> 
>    > An example in XTM, "Elvis has birthday '1935-01-08'". This could
>    > be modeled as a Topic "Elvis", an Association type "has birthday",
>    > and another Topic, "1935-01-08", but another way would be to
>    > consider the birth date as a facet of the Topic "Elvis".
> 
> In LTM 1.2 this would be (assuming availability of the facet PSI Topics):
> 
>      [elvis = "Elvis Presley"]
> 
>      hasFacet([elvis] : faceted,    /* the topic being faceted */
>               [elvis-bd] : facet )  /* the facet being added */
> 
>      [elvis-bd : birthdate]
>      {elvis-bd, facetValue, [[1935-01-08]]}
>      {elvis-bd, facetMinIncl, [[1800-01-01]]}
>      {elvis-bd, facetMaxIncl, [[2003-11-25]]}
> 

I would have thought that the value constraint statements would be
better on the value type topic. i.e:

{birthdate, facetMinIncl, [[1800-01-01]]}
{birthdate, facetMaxIncl, [[2003-11-25]]}

Or are you explicitly saying that only Elvis' birthday lies in that
range ?

Cheers,

Kal
-- 
Kal Ahmed, Techquila
Standards-based Information Management
e: kal@techquila.com
w: www.techquila.com
p: +44 7968 529531