logo       
Google Custom Search
    AddThis Social Bookmark Button
-->

Basename duplication ... ?: msg#00000

Subject: Basename duplication ... ?
I have a basic  -though I hope not trivial / frequently answered-  question.
The question relates to TMs and not TMQL, but it has arisen in relation to 
what I feel is a fundamental point about TMQL(s). In trying to better express 
the latter, I did some research and found the following:

        "F.6.2 Topic name duplicate suppression
        "[If] basename B1 ... is equal to [basename B2] [in the same 
        scope] [a]  basename B3 is created which contains a base
        name equal to [basename B1] ... . All variants of B1 are added
        to B3. All variants of B2 are added to B3. ... B1 and B2 no
        longer exist." (ref.1)

and
        "It is allowed in topic maps for different topics to have the 
        same name[4], something that taxonomies and thesauri do 
        not allow. In practice this is something that occurs all the 
        time, and so it is important to support it. Many classification 
        systems avoid duplicate names by including some dis-
        ambiguation in the name itself. For example, Paris the city 
        and Paris the hero of Greek mythology may have been 
        differentiated as 'Paris (France)' and 'Paris (Greek myth.)'. In 
        topic maps this is not necessary, and the types, occurrences, 
        and associations of the topics will generally distinguish them 
        anyway."
        ([footnote 4.] "You may have heard of the "topic naming 
        constraint", which is a rule in topic maps that only allows 
        duplicate names in certain limited cases. This rule has now 
        been removed from topic maps, so the statement is true.") 
        (ref.2)

So can one have two _different_ topics in the same (set of) topicmap(s) with 
the same basename?

Apologies again for being off topic, but it has (obvious) relevance to 
querying.

        Michael Chapman
        Culoz, France.

(1) "XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0." xtm1-20010806.html v 1.16 14:31:44 pepper at 
_"Informative"_ Annex F.
I have only now (as I type) noticed that this Annex is _not_ normative. Even 
though the (presumably Normative) section section 3.10 in the body of the 
document  requires merging "according to the _rules_ in Annex F" (emphasis 
added) and the Annex itself, declares (section F.1) "This annex describes the 
minimal requirements for a _conformant_ XTM processor. .. [a] processor is 
_required_ to ...." (emphases added).
(2) "Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps! Making sense of it all"
Lars Marius Garshol  www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tm-vs-thesauri.html
?undated


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>