|
Topic Map Specifications | Filter | Export | Statistics | Query
|
reification-effects |
Type(s):
Issue
|
|
|
|
Internal Occurrences (3)
-
Description
- If you reify a topic name, does that affect your allowed type?
If you reify an association, must you inherit its type?
-
Opinion
- in an ideal world i think yes it
should. This are the kinds of details that make the standard robust
but also increase the bar in terms of implementation participation.
However, i think there is one major factor that prevents us from
defining this constraint and that is that we dont define the semantics
of type. We simply have it as a property of a topic. But unlike
conventional knowledge modelling standards we don't define the concept
of class-subclass nor the notion of transitivity - both of which are
truly fundamental to being able to answer the queryion 'what type is
this topic'. given we dont define it people are free to say in their
applications that certain types extend or inherit from other types.
Thus how are they or more importantly another tm processor to know how
to answer the question 'Is this reified name of a valid type?'. Lets
not constrain these aspects yet. The development overhead is high and
the semantics unclear.
- Scope: Graham Moore
-
Resolution
- No explicit rules for these
situations should be added to the SAM, because the [type] property and the
type-instance PSI represent different relationship types.
|
|
|
|
