Use and abuse of occurrence RE: [topicmapmail] Are FacetsReally Simple After All?

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Murray Altheim
|
| [I just realized this one was sitting in my out box.]

No problem. I'd have been too busy to respond any sooner anyway. :)
 
| I think we agree on what facets are, but certainly not on the lack
| of need, if by that you mean they are unnecessary conceptually. 

I don't mean conceptually, but that we don't need them in the syntax
and the data model, since what HyTM-facets did we can now do using
<resourceRef/>.

| I think we both agree that no additional XTM syntax is necessary.

Yep.

| But I think both facets-as-metadata and facets-in-FC are both very
| important concepts, and I've been spending the past few weeks
| implementing a Faceted Classification system in Topic Maps that uses
| both sorts, where I attach FC-style Facets to Topics, and adorn
| those Facets with _f_acets-as-properties (i.e., occurrences on the
| Facet Topics). The terminology is unfortunate, but the structure and
| concepts invaluable. I'm having some fun with inheritance of
| transitive characteristics, etc., basically building a slot-like
| KR/KM system.

Ah, I see. I think having PSIs in order to have a standardized way to
represented faceted classification in topic maps would be useful. I
also think, however, that once you have topic maps you can do *better*
than faceted classification, and that you no longer need it.

FC-in-TM can still be useful for those who have legacy FC data, though.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >