[topicmapmail] Contextualized Topic Maps.

[Thomas B. Passin]

Carlo Moneti wrote:

>>
>> 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?
> 

I am inclined to agree, and that is why I suggested using an occurrence. 
  Scoping topics is just not in the spec and probably will not get in 
the next one.  But you could also achieve what you want by associating a 
document topic with its status, as Murray just posted.

Anything that you do along these lines will not be understood by a 
standard topic maps engine, of course.  The custom filtering, whether 
you use an occurrence or an association or an instanceOf (a la Murray), 
will have to be handled by custom programming.

Cheers,

Tom P