[topicmapmail] Contextualized Topic Maps.

[Carlo Moneti]

  * Murray Altheim wrote:

> I think the idea of scoping topics is a bit of a non-sequitor, and
> is perhaps a mistaken understanding of the Topic Maps paradigm.
> In the real world as well as in Topic Maps, topics simply *exist*
> (in TM, Topics are proxies for their subjects). I believe what
> you really want is the ability to provide a context in which those
> Topics play a role in an Association.

* Carlo Moneti wrote:

> Is scoping topics really unapplicable? Suppose I have a repository of 
> documents, and I want to see the "reviewed" ones and not the 
> "unreviewed".  What would be the recommended approach?

*Thomas Passin wrote: 
> Scope the base names.  When you "see" a topic, normally you "see" its 
> name in a list or display.  By filtering on the scope, you can prevent 
> its appearance, thus effectively removing it temporarily.  Similarly, you 
> can scope occurrences.
> 
> In your example, you could also use a "status" occurrence to track the 
> reviewed status of the topics for the documents, and filter on the 
> status.  That is most likely how I would do it.  I think of scopes as 
> being less emphemeral than a status that could change.  To me, they are 
> more about the nature of a (whatever), and less about its temporary 
> state.  But that is not actually in any spec, it is just my view.

Exactly. This is why I asked "Is scoping topics really unapplicable?" 
Scoping topics can work. But scoping a basename for a status seems to 
stretch (pollute) semantics; perhaps for occurrences as well. What is the 
recommended approach? Any thoughts? Experiences?

Thanks,
Carlo Moneti
http://arsteca.net