[topicmapmail] Are Facets Really Simple After All?

[Dan Corwin]

* Thomas B. Passin wrote:

>> If this is a reasonable way to look at facets, then I do not see why 
>> using facets would be different in any essential way from classifying 
>> using a single hierarchy.  A given topic could be related to one of 
>> the faceted terms, say "location", by an association called, perhaps, 
>> "hasFacet". 

* Murray Altheim wrote:

> So far I think we're in complete agreement. E.g.,
> 
>   hasFacet([Paris] : faceted, [France : location] : facet)
> 
> Choosing to model the "is in" relation above as a facet vs. simply using
> a direct relation is simply a matter of how one desires to model the
> classification scheme.

Murray and Tom -

The above example looks easy, but if you needed to *also* model
"is on", "is under" and a few other spatial relations as facets,
what would you change to let them logically coexist in a single
TM along with "is in"?

One option I see is to duplicate, for every new facet, the Java
access code and/or PSIs which are being used:

   http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/api/org/ceryle/tm/Facet.html

Or, unless I misread what Kal has written on the FC pattern at
www.topicmapcentral.com, another solution (general) is to use
recursive tolog queries.

When you agree it is "really simple", are you factoring these
alternative dependencies (code duplication or tolog) into your
conclusion, or do you see some simpler way I am missing to let
you handle multiple facets in one TM?

Regards,
Dan