On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 20:01, Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>
> > * Thomas B. Passin
> > |
> > | I have found it useful to be able to designate any specific kind of
> > | binary association type to be treated as a hierarchy - of course,
> > | you also have to designate which role acts as "parent" and which as
> > | "child".
> >
> > This is precisely what Kal's PSIs do.
>
> There is a difference, though, because the way I am currently doing it,
> the virtual hierarchies are created separately from the topic map, so
> there are no PSIs or other associations involved. Naturally this means
> no interchange, but where the virtual hierarchies are ad-hoc or
> informal, that is often OK.
>
You can use the PSIs in this way too - simply create a topic map that
annotates the association type in your source topic map. Because merging
adds types, you simply create topics that merge with your association
type and role type topics, and add the hierarchical association type and
subordinate/superordinate role types to those. I see this as a really
useful property of the use of meta-types in this way - it makes it
really easy to perform such annotation of association types.
Of course, thats not to say that this approach would necessarily be
applicable in your case - it sounds to me like you already have a
perfectly workable solution. :-)
Cheers,
Kal
|
| 
