New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Name typing breaks on import into Ontopoly #3

Closed
GoogleCodeExporter opened this Issue Mar 16, 2015 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

If an existing topic map without an Ontopoly schema is imported into 
Ontopoly, all the topics are required to have a name of type http://
psi.ontopia.net/ontology/untyped-name, even if they already have names of 
type http://psi.topicmaps.org/iso13250/model/topic-name.

These two name types are of course equivalent, and should be treated as 
such. In fact, we should probably get rid of untyped-name in favour of 
tmdm:topic-name.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by lar...@gmail.com on 14 Jun 2009 at 12:04

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter Mar 16, 2015

Original comment by lar...@gmail.com on 29 Jun 2009 at 12:00

  • Added labels: Release5.0.0

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

Original comment by lar...@gmail.com on 29 Jun 2009 at 12:00

  • Added labels: Release5.0.0
@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter Mar 16, 2015

This is a lot trickier than it might look at first. Currently our importers 
treat 
the tmdm:topic-name topic just the same as any other topic. So if it is being 
used 
as a name type it ends up as as a name type. Same thing on export. The problem 
occurs when importing or creating topic name with the null type. Ontopia does 
not 
treat the null name type the same as tmdm:topic-name at the moment. The 
on:untyped-
name is being treated equal to the null name type by Ontopoly though.

I am a little uncertain how to actually solve this one to be honest.

Original comment by indiapaleale@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 1:32

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

This is a lot trickier than it might look at first. Currently our importers 
treat 
the tmdm:topic-name topic just the same as any other topic. So if it is being 
used 
as a name type it ends up as as a name type. Same thing on export. The problem 
occurs when importing or creating topic name with the null type. Ontopia does 
not 
treat the null name type the same as tmdm:topic-name at the moment. The 
on:untyped-
name is being treated equal to the null name type by Ontopoly though.

I am a little uncertain how to actually solve this one to be honest.

Original comment by indiapaleale@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 1:32

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter Mar 16, 2015

So making Ontopoly treat tmdm:topic-name and on:typed-name the same is trivial. 
We 
just merge them. This still leaves a big hole in the way the API, the importers 
and 
exporters handle these name types.

Original comment by indiapaleale@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 1:34

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

So making Ontopoly treat tmdm:topic-name and on:typed-name the same is trivial. 
We 
just merge them. This still leaves a big hole in the way the API, the importers 
and 
exporters handle these name types.

Original comment by indiapaleale@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 1:34

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter Mar 16, 2015

I guess the correct way to do this is to make the TopicNameIF.type field 
mandatory. 
If so, the API implementation will have to be changed so that it enforced that 
constraint. The importers would have to use the tmdm:topic-name name type if no 
other type was given. All our existing code, including Ontopoly, must then be 
changed to disallow null name types. This is quite a lot of work.

This is clearly out of scope for 5.0.0 (unless we want to postpone the 
release), but 
should possibly be something that we could target for 5.1.0 instead. IMO.

Original comment by indiapaleale@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 1:45

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

I guess the correct way to do this is to make the TopicNameIF.type field 
mandatory. 
If so, the API implementation will have to be changed so that it enforced that 
constraint. The importers would have to use the tmdm:topic-name name type if no 
other type was given. All our existing code, including Ontopoly, must then be 
changed to disallow null name types. This is quite a lot of work.

This is clearly out of scope for 5.0.0 (unless we want to postpone the 
release), but 
should possibly be something that we could target for 5.1.0 instead. IMO.

Original comment by indiapaleale@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 1:45

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter Mar 16, 2015

Just merging the two has worked quite well for me in Ontopoly. I think just 
doing 
that would suffice in Ontopoly. 

> Ontopia does not treat the null name type the same as tmdm:topic-name at the 
> moment.

IMHO this is a different issue. The above is sufficient to ensure that Ontopoly 
users never see the difference. We can handle the engine issue separately.

Original comment by lar...@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 1:46

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

Just merging the two has worked quite well for me in Ontopoly. I think just 
doing 
that would suffice in Ontopoly. 

> Ontopia does not treat the null name type the same as tmdm:topic-name at the 
> moment.

IMHO this is a different issue. The above is sufficient to ensure that Ontopoly 
users never see the difference. We can handle the engine issue separately.

Original comment by lar...@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 1:46

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter Mar 16, 2015

We can certainly treat it as a different issue.

Merging to the two worked, but it broke the exporter (which I fixed). The 
converter 
now merges on:untyped-name and tmdm:topic-name.

Original comment by indiapaleale@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 2:03

  • Changed state: Fixed

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

We can certainly treat it as a different issue.

Merging to the two worked, but it broke the exporter (which I fixed). The 
converter 
now merges on:untyped-name and tmdm:topic-name.

Original comment by indiapaleale@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2009 at 2:03

  • Changed state: Fixed
@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter Mar 16, 2015

Checked this now in a build I made myself. Works fine.

Original comment by lar...@gmail.com on 8 Jul 2009 at 12:51

  • Changed state: Verified

GoogleCodeExporter commented Mar 16, 2015

Checked this now in a build I made myself. Works fine.

Original comment by lar...@gmail.com on 8 Jul 2009 at 12:51

  • Changed state: Verified
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment