Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: A modest proposal
Yes, you would.
But then presumably if you were Swahili and wanted to look up giraffes
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)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Altheim" <email@example.com>
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
> > 1.0 DTD:
> > Topic baseNames should not have scopes, and a topic should only have
> > baseName.
> > Instead, whenever a baseName passes into a new scope, it should
> > 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 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