A step towards TMDM 3.0

474 views
425 views

Published on

Presentation for the open space session of TMRA 2008, International Conference on Topic Maps Research and Applications, Leipzig, Germany.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
474
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
29
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A step towards TMDM 3.0

  1. 1. A step towards TMDM 3.0 TMRA 2008 Open Space Session Bock, Barta, Baldauf, Maicher
  2. 2. Removal of Variants <ul><li>Technically not neccessary: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Variants can be mapped to names and occurrences bijectively </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Nobody uses them anyway </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Except the Ilmenau guys  ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Did you? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Most implementors don‘t implement them </li></ul><ul><li>Not accessible via TMQL anyway </li></ul><ul><li>Hard to teach </li></ul><ul><li>See ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34N0705 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www1.y12.doe.gov/capabilities/sgml/sc34/document/0705.htm </li></ul></ul><ul><li>They are just a relict from times when names were not typed </li></ul>
  3. 3. Names and Occurrences <ul><li>Names should be special Occurrences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplifies TMRM mapping </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It‘s more aligned with TMQL </li></ul></ul><ul><li>OR: Unify them and call the new thing „Characteristic“ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It‘s called C. in TMQL </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Reifiable Association Occurrence Name
  5. 5. Reifiable Association Occurrence Name
  6. 6. Reifiable Association Characteristic
  7. 7. Reification <ul><li>We need two types of reification: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reification „r0“ of the subject of the statement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reification „r1“ of the assertion itself </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There is a third type, but we don’t need it (do we?) </li></ul>
  8. 8. Scope <ul><li>Clarify Scoping (AND vs. OR) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Maybe allow both somehow? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Could be done: Scope not as a set of topics but a scope-object (some implementations do that) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Or: a set of sets - Prefer DNF or CNF? (better not...) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>AND, OR, IMPLICATION, NEGATION… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>OR: ditch it  </li></ul>
  9. 9. Time and Units <ul><li>Statements should have a time interval in which they are valid </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does scoping work here? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it practicable? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engine-support? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>assoc(a:b) @[since: 2008-09-12 upto: 2008-12-24] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Values need support for units </li></ul><ul><ul><li>empty => dimensionless </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Support for lists <ul><li>Maybe some (sorted) container principle </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Could also serve for hierarchies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Would help for LINQ, etc. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Further Ideas <ul><li>Clarify difference between Item Identifiers and Subject Identifiers </li></ul><ul><li>Make SI/SL/II special Occurrences??? </li></ul>
  12. 12. Thanks Comments? Questions?
  13. 13. Post scriptum <ul><li>This is no formal proposal! </li></ul><ul><li>You disagree with everything? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fine, let‘s start a dialogue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Because that‘s our intention  </li></ul></ul>

×