[topicmapmail] Contextualized Topic Maps.

[Murray Altheim]

Olivier Lamborelle wrote:
> 
> Thomas Schwotzer wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>>> No change. It's always been this way. From XTM 1.0:
>>>
>>>   "An association is a relationship between one or more topics, each
>>>    of which plays a role as a member of that association. The roles
>>>    a topic plays in associations are among the characteristics that
>>>    can be assigned to it and are therefore governed by scope."
>>>    http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/#desc-association
>>
>>
>> I'm afraid its hairsplitting. Anyway:
>> "The roles a topic plays in associations are among the characteristics
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> that can be assigned to it and are therefore governed by scope." 
> 
> That's incorrect I think.

No, that is correct. I think I perhaps used a quote that didn't exactly
illustrate the point I was trying to make though, which is clarified in
my recent reply to Thomas.

>> Roles played by a topic can be scoped, not the association itself.
>> That's different, isn't it? 
> 
> It's the contrary, and yes it makes a (big) difference.

Associations can be scoped, association members have what's called a
role specification, which defines the role played in the association,
such as "stepped on" in a "bug squash" relation, or the more common
"husband" in a marriage relation (though lately that example is harder
to be clear about).

>> I often read about "associations between topics" which is in my
>> understanding a linguistic shortcut for "two topics both playing
>> roles in one association".
> 
> Well, in my own view not exactly since there is a separate <association> element.
> 
>> Thus, validity of a relation between both topics can depend
>> on two scopes not just one. There can be more than just a single
>> scope for one association.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.

Correct.

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                    http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

    LEO (July 23-Aug. 22): When he first invented the printing press
    in the fifteenth century, Johannes Gutenberg used it to fashion
    frivolous little things like sets of playing cards. Only later
    did he put it to work mass-producing books, turning it into a
    revolutionary tool for disseminating information. I foresee a
    similar evolution for you in the coming weeks, Leo. In the early
    going, you'll employ a wonderful new resource in a relatively
    impractical way; or maybe a big, fresh idea will first appear in
    a trivial context. Not to worry, though. After the initial false
    starts and wasteful experiments, you will ultimately discover an
    elegant use for your innovation. Be patient.      -- Rob Brezsny