Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: A modest proposal
Yes, you would.
But then presumably if you were Swahili and wanted to look up giraffes
you would
be searching in Swahili and not in English.
Swahili would be a scope.
Then it makes no difference to what the user would see, it only enables
deep contexts within the system if that is desirable. (01)
HTH,
Peter (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Altheim" <m.altheim@open.ac.uk>
To: <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: A modest proposal (03)
> Peter Jones wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> Murray
>
> ......................................................................
> Murray Altheim <mailto:m.altheim @ open.ac.uk>
> Knowledge Media Institute
> The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK
>
> In the evening
> The rice leaves in the garden
> Rustle in the autumn wind
> That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
>
> (04)