[topicmapmail] Topic Naming Constraint

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Miles Thompson
|
| Can somebody please explain (or point me to a reference) as to what
| the working group intends to do with the Topic Naming Constraint in
| the next version of the specification (XTM1.1).

You can find this issue in our tm-standards.xtm demo topic map:

<URL: http://www.ontopia.net/omnigator/models/topic_complete.jsp?tm=tm-standards.xtm&id=topic-naming-constraint >
 
It was agreed at the SC34 meeting in Baltimore in December 2002 to
remove the TNC in the form that it had in ISO 13250:2000 and XTM 1.0,
but to add a capability that lets you do the same thing (and more!),
but without all the problems the TNC had.

The current TMDM draft has this solution in it in section 7.5:

  <URL: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#sect-name-types >

| I'm assuming that the working group will continue to recognize the
| validity of this statement I found (via google) in the working group
| list (but want to be reassured that it is)...
| 
| > I see the usefulness of being able to do automatic namespace-based
| > merges. This is extremely useful, but unfortunately the problem is
| > that people (myself included) believe that base names are intended for
| > labelling purposes, not for identification.

Yes, this pretty much sums up the motivation for the eventual solution
to the TNC problem.
 
| I am seriously hoping that, by placing certain "scopes" on Company
| ticker symbols I will be able to merge in data from multiple data
| sources so all data on the subject of a single company is accessible
| from one place (er Topic).

Almost. You need to make the ticker symbols base names of a particular
type, and then to make that type an instance of unique-characteristic.
 
| Personally, what would suit me just fine is if merging on basenames
| in the unconstrained scope was not automatic, but that in defined
| scopes, the basenames would merge. mmmm I suppose we strike here the
| problem with exact definition of 'scope' (whether to 'include' or
| 'exclude' scopes that share only one topic amongst many).
| 
| Arghh.. Woah !

Yep, this was the problem exactly, and that's why we decided to use
types instead of scope to specify uniqueness. :)
 
| But hopefully someone can let me know that name space merging (via
| basenames in certain scopes) will continue to be available in the
| next version of the XTM spec as I really need it.

Look at the draft and let us know what you think.

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