- From: Graham Moore <gdm@empolis.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 09:27:58 -0000
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: "Lars Marius Garshol" <larsga@garshol.priv.no>
Thomas Passin wrote: > Now that's interesting in view of the topic map approach. > Topic maps have > some rules that allow merging of topics, even when maps are > merged. There > is also a mechanism that can prevent merging accross maps if > one sees fit. > Basically, if two topics are known to represent the same > "subject" they > would be mergedONe way that can be known - in topic maps - is > if they share > the same name (read "label") and the shared names also share > the same set of > scopes. While the TopicNaming constraint - the one described above - is *a* way to merge topics I found that this mechanism can quickly become complicated and unusable. In best practice Topics should be merged based on either their SubjectIndicatorReference or ResourceReference values - the identity. This is just an opinion - Lars whats your experience on this issue? graham
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2001 04:25:22 UTC