[topicmapmail] Re: Topic map design guidelines? (Jan Algermissen)

[Carlo Moneti]

I tried modeling family information as well a while back, and found it 
cumbersome to model all of the possible associations. The problem  reminded 
me vaguely of an un-normalized relational database. Anyway, it occurred to 
me that only a modest number of associations were necessary for "me" to 
infer the other possible associations. When accessing a normalized 
database, the "database programmer" does the inferencing--the result of 
which is embodied in the query--that can produce a sophisticated and 
informative report.

I suppose the number of associations could be reduced significantly in many 
topic maps if the topic map viewer included an inference engine.

I envision a day when a generic topic map viewer will be the main 
application we use (kind of like web browsers today); each topic map may 
come with a specifically defined skin (layout template) to properly present 
that topic map's information; functional plugins may be called on to 
manipulate/add/delete data. Perhaps a path to total application integration?

Anyway, an inference engine would be part of the envisoned generic topic 
map viewer. This suggests a need for standards that define what the 
inference engine does and how to interact with it.  Has there been any work 
on such an engine or standards for it?

Thanks,
Carlo Moneti
http://arsteca.net





On 2004.07.21 10:06 Johannes Busse wrote:
|Jan Algermissen wrote:
|
|> - You should also (from my experience) restrict yourself to
|
|>   - using a given role only in associations of a single type (the
|>     combination of the roles is essentially what constitutes the
|>     type of relationship, so they should not be mixed across
|>     different types). This also enables you to select associations
|>     soly by role: "find all assocications where X plays superclass"
|>     as opposed to "find all assocications of type superclass-subclass
|>     where X plays superclass".
|
|hm, I was wrestling for a long time with this problem.
|
|Jan: to model the assocs between relatives (son, mother, uncle etc.),
|you would recommend a handful (up to a dozend!) of comparatively spezific
|assocs, euch of which can be easily predicted once you know one of the
|roles
|-- and vice versa? Then in fact the visualization of a topic map can
|omit to tell you which roles take part within a given assoc (like the
|omnigator does in the current version.)
|
|But what about the following model: just take one single and comparatively
|generic association (let it call "relatives"), and allow each of the
|roles (like son, mother, uncle, sister etc.) to take part within this
|association. The specific relationship between two persons is modelled
|then not only in terms of associations, but also in terms of (tuples of)
|roles. Then -- in contrast to the preliminary
|model -- the visualization of a topic
|map has necessarily to tell you not only the assoc, but also the roles
|included (Hello Steve Pepper: we talked about this design principle some
|weeks
|ago in Darmstadt. You considered to add
|an new skin to the omnigator which makes the roles more explicit also in
|binary assocs.)
|
|more abstractly the main question is:
|- Is it a good design to chain roles and assocs
|  rather to such an extend, that your prediction will be sucessful?
|- Or should on the contrary each of them (roles and assocs)
|  represent some specific information, which might be traded
|  rather independently in a model?
|
|Well, one part of the answer is clear: it depends on the navigation
|and visualization of an XTM, or the possibilities of your query
|language. (I for my part work on a "role focusing" visualization of XTM;
|for an unpublished proof of concept see
|http://www.ews.uni-heidelberg.de/~busse/darmstadt04/bbb-fancy/home.html )
|
|But the other part of the answer might be formulated in
|terms of coding theory. here especially the problem applies, how
|much redundancy within a model you want to have. And from this point
|of view a concise model would not allow you to
|"select associations soly by role" -- not at all!
|
|Well, there is no conflict. But a question:
|Do you agree that both modelling approaches
|are "valid" according to the XTM specification?
|
|
|herzliche Grüße
|Johannes Busse
|--
|Dr. Johannes Busse,  Erziehungswiss. Seminar,  Univ.Heidelberg
|Akademiestr.3, 69117 HD  |  Kellereigasse 3, 69 526 Ladenburg
|tel 06221 / 54-7531      |  tel 06203 / 95 35 83
|http://www.jbusse.de        mailto:busse@ews.uni-heidelberg.de
|_______________________________________________
|topicmapmail mailing list
|topicmapmail@infoloom.com
|http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
|