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

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Johannes Busse
| 
| 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.

I would take a third approach here, and have only two association
types:

  parenthood(a : child, b : mother, c : father)
  marriage(b : wife, c : husband)

and use inference rules to work out who is the uncle, mother, sister,
sibling, parent, grandfather, ancestor, cousin, etc of who.

These inference rules would make defining a custom visualization dead
easy.

| 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?

I don't understand this question. Can you explain?

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >