[ba-ohs-talk] Re: A modest proposal
Murray Altheim wrote: (01)
> perhaps mistaking base names for topic identity? That what a topic
> really is is a *binding point* around which the base names,
occurrences,
> and roles played in associations revolve. That "flatness" is
important,
> not a detractor, because without it there is no topic identity. And
> without topic identity, there can be no merging. (02)
Another explanation of what I'm proposing, in terms of the existing XTM
1.0 DTD:
Topic baseNames should not have scopes, and a topic should only have 1
baseName.
Instead, whenever a baseName passes into a new scope, it should become a
separate new topic with its
own DUID. (03)
--
Peter (04)