Call me a programmer but it occurs to me that the question is
whether you define your association types at a
high level as being of *type* association-type, or not.
Using your example:
When you state that:
employed-by(lmg : employee, bouvet : employer)
Then you are asserting that there is an
Association which is an instance of
the 'association type' "employed-by" .
But if 'employed-by' is itself, of type 'association type'
then, after you reify thee statement:
employed-by(lmg : employee, bouvet : employer) ~ lmg-employment
then, yes, it seems odd, to state that lmg-employment
is of 'type' "employed-by" since it's a topic, not an association type.
(ie a categorical mistake)
--
So the question is, does the TMDM require that all association-types, eg
employed-by be, themselves, of 'type' association-type or is that
optional.
--
You know what, my head hurts, I'm going back into my programmer hole.
Thanks
Miles
> -----Original Message-----
> From: topicmapmail-bounces-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:topicmapmail-
> bounces-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lars Marius
> Garshol
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 7:01 PM
> To: TopicMapMail
> Subject: Re: [topicmapmail] Reification and Type Instance
>
>
> * Robert Cerny
> >
> > I have a question regarding the TMDM: If i reify a typed
> statement, is
> > the resulting topic an instance of the type of the statement?
>
> This came up a couple of times in ISO meetings, but was never
> really resolved, partly because in the contexts where it came up,
> it didn't need to be.
>
> But let's try to reason it through, and see where we wind up.
>
> If I say:
>
> employed-by(lmg : employee, bouvet : employer) ~ lmg-employment
>
> then I'm really asserting that the 'lmg-employment' topic
> represents the same thing as the 'employed-by' association. That
> does kind of imply that they should have the same type. It's been
> argued that the statement-type relationship and the type-instance
> (for topics) relationship are different relationships, but I'm
> not sure that matters.
>
> And if we go on to say
>
> [lmg-employment : employed-by]
>
> that does sound kind of funny, but on the other hand another name
> for 'employed-by' is 'employment' and
>
> [lmg-employment : employment]
>
> is perfectly fine.
>
> I can't really find any good reason why it shouldn't be the same
> type. If anyone can I'd be interested to hear it. (Borislav?)
>
> --
> Lars Marius Garshol Mobile: +47 98 21 55
> 50
> Bouvet Office: +47 23 40 60
> 00
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
|
