Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: A modest proposal

[Murray Altheim <m.altheim@open.ac.uk>]

Peter Jones wrote:    (01)

> Murray Altheim wrote:
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 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.    (02)


So for that most simplistic topic that has three base names, one
in English, one in French, one in Swahili, all for the topic of
giraffes, we'd have three distinct topics? Each about the same
subject, about giraffes? I don't get it.    (03)

Murray    (04)

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                         <mailto:m.altheim @ open.ac.uk>
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK    (05)

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu    (06)