[topicmapmail] How to best model relations with mode (assertive, modal, intention, negation) with topic maps?

[Dmitry]

----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Alexander Sigel"Subject: [topicmapmail] 
>
>I'd like to model assertions which are only true in the interpretation
>of a certain mode.
>(cf. [1, p. 95]: (*1*) assertive (is [default]), (*2*) modal (may be
>[possible world]), (*3*) intention (is intended or claimed to be), (*4*)
>negation (is not)).

>My question is:
>Which of the following modelling possibilities seems to be most
>appropriate, topic mappish and best practice?

>1. extend each association type with four subtyped relationship types,
>one for each mode
>2. reifiy the association and connect with a binary association
>(statement - mode: has mode/is mode of) to the mode type
>3. extend the binary association types by the mode role type to ternary
>ones
>4. use scope(s) to represent context/viewpoints

>For the moment, I lean towards relationship subtypes or reification, but
>have not taken any decision yet.

>Do you have other suggestions? Some feedback is appreciated!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would use scope in this case. Scope allows to represent different worlds in the same upper context
and even to do inference for diffrent worlds and not to mix them.

It is also possible to "lift" assertions from one world to another and compare worlds.

I often use these context dimensions:

truth: false, default false, unknown, default true, true
domain: virtual worlds, content of resources, different areas of knowledge, enterprise applications
opinion: person or organization
time: interval in time
language: (for names only)

Dmitry