Re: Re: TMQL Problem (scoping occurrences).
Lars Marius Garshol <[email protected]> Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:00:51 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xtm.tmql |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
* Michael Chapman | | Basically I have a situation where there are many descriptions. Some | of these have language variants. Some do not. The general principle is that to get consistent behaviour each occurrence must have a unique type + scope combination, otherwise it will be impossible for any kind of application to consistently select a particular occurrence. (In fact, it will even be impossible to define which occurrence you want in any given situation.) | I do not wish to 'pollute' the occurrence_role_type by giving it a | (to me gratuitous) serial number or other tag (as in "description-1" | or "short-description") merely to lump the language variants | together. Well, if your descriptions really are grouped into long and short descriptions then I think these are the appropriate occurrence types to use. If you want to capture the commonality between the two you can make them both subtypes of "description". | 1. It is possible to workaround the problem by giving serial numbers | (or extra naming elements, e.g. "short-", "long-") to the occurrence | type role. This though, then, causes problems with handling | occurrence role types as one type is artificially sub-divided. Well, if the occurrences really are long and short I don't know that there is any artificial division there. I'm assuming that you have long and short ones because you want to see one in one context and the other in another context. Let me turn it around: why do you have two descriptions in English? Why not just one? | 2. The scope (in this situation at least) is _not_ the scope of the | occurrence as a whole. The scope is the scope of the resource data | (or the locator). I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. How do you see the difference? | * To keep this brief: That Occurrence scoping should be closer to | Topic notation than Association notation. MC. I don't understand that. Can you give an example? -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >