18 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.topicmaps-commentRe: [topicmaps-comment] Mapping Topic...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| W. Eliot Kimber | Jul 11, 2002 12:32 pm | |
| Lars Marius Garshol | Jul 11, 2002 1:00 pm | |
| Thomas B. Passin | Jul 11, 2002 4:12 pm | |
| Lars Marius Garshol | Jul 12, 2002 12:30 am | |
| Murray Altheim | Jul 12, 2002 4:12 am | |
| Lars Marius Garshol | Jul 12, 2002 5:14 am | |
| Thomas B. Passin | Jul 12, 2002 5:26 am | |
| Murray Altheim | Jul 12, 2002 5:28 am | |
| Lars Marius Garshol | Jul 12, 2002 5:35 am | |
| Lars Marius Garshol | Jul 12, 2002 5:37 am | |
| Lars Marius Garshol | Jul 12, 2002 5:44 am | |
| Murray Altheim | Jul 12, 2002 6:26 am | |
| W. Eliot Kimber | Jul 12, 2002 7:04 am | |
| Thomas B. Passin | Jul 12, 2002 6:09 pm | |
| Thomas B. Passin | Jul 12, 2002 6:25 pm | |
| Murray Altheim | Jul 15, 2002 4:40 am | |
| Thomas B. Passin | Jul 15, 2002 5:09 am | |
| Murray Altheim | Jul 15, 2002 6:16 am |
| Subject: | Re: [topicmaps-comment] Mapping Topics to Cyc: How To Handle Scope? | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Lars Marius Garshol (lar...@garshol.priv.no) | |
| Date: | Jul 12, 2002 5:35:28 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.topicmaps-comment | |
* Lars Marius Garshol | | XTM doesn't say that. It says very clearly that "This specification | places no constraints on how applications interpret scope." | | If you look at section 2.2.1.6 you'll also see that there is nothing | at all about this issue there.
* Thomas B. Passin | | If you look at section 3.3.1, you will find | | " The <scope> element consists of one or more <topicRef>, | <resourceRef>, or <subjectIndicatorRef> elements. The union of the | subjects corresponding to these elements specifies the context in | which the assignment of the topic characteristic is considered to be | valid." | | This was the basis for my remark about OR-ing. How do you interpret | this paragraph, if not describing the OR interpretation?
Ouch. You are of course right that this does support your interpretation.
I asked Steve (P.) now, and his recollection was that it should be OR/any, so presumably the sentence in the terminology section is a mistake.
So it seems that I am wrong and you and Murray are right. The SAM issue is still open, however.
-- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >