[topicmapmail] Contextualized Topic Maps.
Olivier Lamborelle
olivier.lamborelle@spaceapplications.com
Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:13:16 +0100
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
Thomas Schwotzer wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid4062BB00.2020104@ivs.tu-berlin.de">Hi, <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">No change. It's always been this way. From XTM
1.0: <br>
<br>
"An association is a relationship between one or more topics, each <br>
of which plays a role as a member of that association. The roles <br>
a topic plays in associations are among the characteristics that <br>
can be assigned to it and are therefore governed by scope." <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/#desc-association">http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/#desc-association</a> <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm afraid its hairsplitting. Anyway: <br>
"The roles a topic plays in associations are among the characteristics <br>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <br>
that can be assigned to it and are therefore governed by scope." </blockquote>
That's incorrect I think.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid4062BB00.2020104@ivs.tu-berlin.de">Roles
played by a topic can be scoped, not the association itself. <br>
That's different, isn't it? </blockquote>
It's the contrary, and yes it makes a (big) difference.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid4062BB00.2020104@ivs.tu-berlin.de">I often
read about "associations between topics" which is in my <br>
understanding a linguistic shortcut for "two topics both playing <br>
roles in one association".</blockquote>
Well, in my own view not exactly since there is a separate <association>
element.
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid4062BB00.2020104@ivs.tu-berlin.de">Thus,
validity of a relation between both topics can depend <br>
on two scopes not just one. There can be more than just a single <br>
scope for one association. <br>
</blockquote>
Yes, association can be scoped by several (topicRef | subjectIndRef | resourceRef)
and these scopes apply to the whole association. Meaning you can not scope
differently each member of the association.<br>
<br>
In other words, if you are 'in the right scope', then you 'can see' the association,
and the two topics (for example) are part of it. If you are not, then the
association 'disappear' as well as the fact that the topics play role in
it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid4062BB00.2020104@ivs.tu-berlin.de">Am I
wrong? I'm sorry, if so. </blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
O. Lamborelle<br>
System & Operations Engineer<br>
<br>
<b>Space Applications Services NV</b><br>
Leuvensesteenweg 325<br>
B-1932 Zaventem<br>
BELGIUM<br>
<br>
<br>
Tel: +32 2 710 15 81<br>
Fax: +32 2 721 54 44<br>
URL: <a href="http://www.spaceapplications.com" target="blank">http://www.spaceapplications.com</a><br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>