tm4j-users

[TM4J-users] Basename Merging

[Andrea C. <mai...@st...>]

Hi,
I am looking for a way to deactivate the automatic merging of topics basing
on basenames. I want two topics to merge only if they have the same Subject
Indicator: it could be that, even if two topics have the same basename, they
mean different things.
I'm using a Hibernate back end.
Thanks for your help!
Andrea
 
 
 

Re: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging

[<ric...@ya...>]

Hi Andrea,

I won't profess to be an expert on topic maps, as I'm just starting out with them myself, so
others may have better suggestions than me, but my understanding of the name-based merging rule,
was topics with the same base name, in the same scope, were merged. Perhaps you could use
different scopes to distinguish between topis with the same base name, but which mean different
things, to prevent them merging?

Richard.

--- Andrea Carradori <mai...@st...> wrote: > Hi,
> I am looking for a way to deactivate the automatic merging of topics basing
> on basenames. I want two topics to merge only if they have the same Subject
> Indicator: it could be that, even if two topics have the same basename, they
> mean different things.
> I'm using a Hibernate back end.
> Thanks for your help!
> Andrea
>  
>  
>  
>  


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

R: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging

[Andrea C. <mai...@st...>]

Hi Richard,
Thank you for your answer, but I can't agree with you: Subject Indicators
exist just because base names are not enough to describe subjects. The point
is: topics describe subjects, not the words describing the subjects (i.e.
base names).
This is also the reason why it is possible to associate many base names to a
topic, but only one subject indicator.
An example is the word "mouse". What do we mean with it? The object you are
probably holding in your hand right now, or the animal which lives in the
cellar?
If we create two topics, and each of them is supposed to refer to one of
these two meanings of "mouse", their two subject indicators should describe
clearly to which one each topic refers (i.e. the Subject Indicators are
different), but the base names in the two topics should be identical
("mouse").
Unfortunately, I'm no expert too; this means this is just what I understand
from the topic map data model.

My experience with tm4j is that even if two topics have two identical base
names, but each base name has different scope, the two topics merge anyway.
Is that a normal behaviour?

Cheers,
Andrea



-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Richard Gregory [mailto:ric...@ya...] 
Inviato: Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 13:35
A: Andrea Carradori; tm4...@li...
Oggetto: Re: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging

Hi Andrea,

I won't profess to be an expert on topic maps, as I'm just starting out with
them myself, so
others may have better suggestions than me, but my understanding of the
name-based merging rule,
was topics with the same base name, in the same scope, were merged. Perhaps
you could use
different scopes to distinguish between topis with the same base name, but
which mean different
things, to prevent them merging?

Richard.

--- Andrea Carradori <mai...@st...> wrote: > Hi,
> I am looking for a way to deactivate the automatic merging of topics
basing
> on basenames. I want two topics to merge only if they have the same
Subject
> Indicator: it could be that, even if two topics have the same basename,
they
> mean different things.
> I'm using a Hibernate back end.
> Thanks for your help!
> Andrea
>  
>  
>  
>  


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Re: R: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging

[Kal A. <ka...@te...>]

Hi Andrea,

I always had similar arguments against this feature of the topic map
standard - there are just to many cases like "mouse" and "mouse".
Unfortunately, I didn't win that argument in the standardisation
process, and the constraint remained. To be fair, sometimes it is very
useful - especially when trying to process unstructured text into topic
map data. 

The good news (for the future) is that in the next version of the
standard, name-based merging will be restricted to only *typed* names
(name types are also being added in the next version of the standard).

For now, there are three ways to get round this constraint:
1) The brute-force way is to add the topic that has the name into the
scope of each of its names:

<topic id="computer-mouse">
  <baseName>
    <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#computer-mouse"/></scope>
    <baseNameString>mouse</baseNameString>
  </baseName>
</topic>

2) A slightly more subtle (and more informative) way is to create a
topic for the domain in which the name is unique, and then create a 
second base name that combines the domain name and the topic name to
make a unique name string.
<topic id="computer-mouse">
  <baseName>
    <scope><topicRef xlink:href="#computer-hardware"/></scope>
    <baseNameString>mouse</baseNameString>
  </baseName>
  <baseName>
    <baseNameString>mouse (Computer Hardware)</baseNameString>
  </baseName>
</topic>

3) Turn off name-based merging in TM4J - Stefan has already referred to
how to do that in a previous email.

I would urge you to look at if you can do (2). If you have topic maps
from lots of different sources, consider using the source as the
"domain" topic.

Cheers,

Kal

On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 16:37, Andrea Carradori wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> Thank you for your answer, but I can't agree with you: Subject Indicators
> exist just because base names are not enough to describe subjects. The point
> is: topics describe subjects, not the words describing the subjects (i.e.
> base names).
> This is also the reason why it is possible to associate many base names to a
> topic, but only one subject indicator.
> An example is the word "mouse". What do we mean with it? The object you are
> probably holding in your hand right now, or the animal which lives in the
> cellar?
> If we create two topics, and each of them is supposed to refer to one of
> these two meanings of "mouse", their two subject indicators should describe
> clearly to which one each topic refers (i.e. the Subject Indicators are
> different), but the base names in the two topics should be identical
> ("mouse").
> Unfortunately, I'm no expert too; this means this is just what I understand
> from the topic map data model.
> 
> My experience with tm4j is that even if two topics have two identical base
> names, but each base name has different scope, the two topics merge anyway.
> Is that a normal behaviour?
> 
> Cheers,
> Andrea
> 
> 
> 
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Richard Gregory [mailto:ric...@ya...] 
> Inviato: Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 13:35
> A: Andrea Carradori; tm4...@li...
> Oggetto: Re: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging
> 
> Hi Andrea,
> 
> I won't profess to be an expert on topic maps, as I'm just starting out with
> them myself, so
> others may have better suggestions than me, but my understanding of the
> name-based merging rule,
> was topics with the same base name, in the same scope, were merged. Perhaps
> you could use
> different scopes to distinguish between topis with the same base name, but
> which mean different
> things, to prevent them merging?
> 
> Richard.
> 
> --- Andrea Carradori <mai...@st...> wrote: > Hi,
> > I am looking for a way to deactivate the automatic merging of topics
> basing
> > on basenames. I want two topics to merge only if they have the same
> Subject
> > Indicator: it could be that, even if two topics have the same basename,
> they
> > mean different things.
> > I'm using a Hibernate back end.
> > Thanks for your help!
> > Andrea
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> 
> 
> 	
> 	
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
> Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
> Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - 
> digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, 
> unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
> _______________________________________________
> Tm4j-users mailing list
> Tm4...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tm4j-users
-- 
Kal Ahmed <ka...@te...>
techquila

Re: R: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging

[<ric...@ya...>]

Hi Andrea,

I agree totally with what you say about the difference between base names and subject indicators
to describe subjects. Perhaps my original reply wasn't that clear, but what I was suggesting was
the option number 1, of the 3 options given by Kal, thinking that if you scoped the base names, to
prevent a name based merge, you would only then merge when the subject indicators were identical.
I've not used the merge facilities of TM4J yet, so I've not come accross the probelm you describe
of topics merging even if the base names have a different scope, so I can't suggest anything
there. Anyway, it looks like you have a few options from the real experts now, so hopefully one of
them will solve your problems.

Bye the way, I like your "mouse" example, and I'll have to remember it to use myself when
explaining things.

Cheers,

Richard. 

--- Andrea Carradori <mai...@st...> wrote: > Hi Richard,
> Thank you for your answer, but I can't agree with you: Subject Indicators
> exist just because base names are not enough to describe subjects. The point
> is: topics describe subjects, not the words describing the subjects (i.e.
> base names).
> This is also the reason why it is possible to associate many base names to a
> topic, but only one subject indicator.
> An example is the word "mouse". What do we mean with it? The object you are
> probably holding in your hand right now, or the animal which lives in the
> cellar?
> If we create two topics, and each of them is supposed to refer to one of
> these two meanings of "mouse", their two subject indicators should describe
> clearly to which one each topic refers (i.e. the Subject Indicators are
> different), but the base names in the two topics should be identical
> ("mouse").
> Unfortunately, I'm no expert too; this means this is just what I understand
> from the topic map data model.
> 
> My experience with tm4j is that even if two topics have two identical base
> names, but each base name has different scope, the two topics merge anyway.
> Is that a normal behaviour?
> 
> Cheers,
> Andrea
> 
> 
> 
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Richard Gregory [mailto:ric...@ya...] 
> Inviato: Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 13:35
> A: Andrea Carradori; tm4...@li...
> Oggetto: Re: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging
> 
> Hi Andrea,
> 
> I won't profess to be an expert on topic maps, as I'm just starting out with
> them myself, so
> others may have better suggestions than me, but my understanding of the
> name-based merging rule,
> was topics with the same base name, in the same scope, were merged. Perhaps
> you could use
> different scopes to distinguish between topis with the same base name, but
> which mean different
> things, to prevent them merging?
> 
> Richard.
> 
> --- Andrea Carradori <mai...@st...> wrote: > Hi,
> > I am looking for a way to deactivate the automatic merging of topics
> basing
> > on basenames. I want two topics to merge only if they have the same
> Subject
> > Indicator: it could be that, even if two topics have the same basename,
> they
> > mean different things.
> > I'm using a Hibernate back end.
> > Thanks for your help!
> > Andrea
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> 
> 
> 	
> 	
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
> Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> 
>  


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

R: R: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging

[Andrea C. <mai...@st...>]

Hi,
I thank you all for the help, I'll try out the options described by the
experts!

Cheers,

Andrea


-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Richard Gregory [mailto:ric...@ya...] 
Inviato: Donnerstag, 15. Juli 2004 13:56
A: Andrea Carradori
Cc: tm4...@li...
Oggetto: Re: R: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging

Hi Andrea,

I agree totally with what you say about the difference between base names
and subject indicators
to describe subjects. Perhaps my original reply wasn't that clear, but what
I was suggesting was
the option number 1, of the 3 options given by Kal, thinking that if you
scoped the base names, to
prevent a name based merge, you would only then merge when the subject
indicators were identical.
I've not used the merge facilities of TM4J yet, so I've not come accross the
probelm you describe
of topics merging even if the base names have a different scope, so I can't
suggest anything
there. Anyway, it looks like you have a few options from the real experts
now, so hopefully one of
them will solve your problems.

Bye the way, I like your "mouse" example, and I'll have to remember it to
use myself when
explaining things.

Cheers,

Richard. 

--- Andrea Carradori <mai...@st...> wrote: > Hi Richard,
> Thank you for your answer, but I can't agree with you: Subject Indicators
> exist just because base names are not enough to describe subjects. The
point
> is: topics describe subjects, not the words describing the subjects (i.e.
> base names).
> This is also the reason why it is possible to associate many base names to
a
> topic, but only one subject indicator.
> An example is the word "mouse". What do we mean with it? The object you
are
> probably holding in your hand right now, or the animal which lives in the
> cellar?
> If we create two topics, and each of them is supposed to refer to one of
> these two meanings of "mouse", their two subject indicators should
describe
> clearly to which one each topic refers (i.e. the Subject Indicators are
> different), but the base names in the two topics should be identical
> ("mouse").
> Unfortunately, I'm no expert too; this means this is just what I
understand
> from the topic map data model.
> 
> My experience with tm4j is that even if two topics have two identical base
> names, but each base name has different scope, the two topics merge
anyway.
> Is that a normal behaviour?
> 
> Cheers,
> Andrea
> 
> 
> 
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Richard Gregory [mailto:ric...@ya...] 
> Inviato: Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2004 13:35
> A: Andrea Carradori; tm4...@li...
> Oggetto: Re: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging
> 
> Hi Andrea,
> 
> I won't profess to be an expert on topic maps, as I'm just starting out
with
> them myself, so
> others may have better suggestions than me, but my understanding of the
> name-based merging rule,
> was topics with the same base name, in the same scope, were merged.
Perhaps
> you could use
> different scopes to distinguish between topis with the same base name, but
> which mean different
> things, to prevent them merging?
> 
> Richard.
> 
> --- Andrea Carradori <mai...@st...> wrote: > Hi,
> > I am looking for a way to deactivate the automatic merging of topics
> basing
> > on basenames. I want two topics to merge only if they have the same
> Subject
> > Indicator: it could be that, even if two topics have the same basename,
> they
> > mean different things.
> > I'm using a Hibernate back end.
> > Thanks for your help!
> > Andrea
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> 
> 
> 	
> 	
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
> Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> 
>  


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Re: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging

[Stefan L. <li...@no...>]

Hi Andrea,

I'm also using TM4J without baseName merging. You can turn it off by=20
simply changing the System.property :

tm4j.name.based.merge=3Dfalse

If you use the merging skript, just add it to the java call with -Dtm4j.n=
ame.based.merge=3Dfalse

But as i stated in an earlier mail, you cannot use this when working with=
 TMNav, so you can't visualize TopicMaps which contain Topics with same B=
aseNames.

Stefan


Andrea Carradori wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am looking for a way to deactivate the automatic merging of topics=20
> basing on basenames. I want two topics to merge only if they have the=20
> same Subject Indicator: it could be that, even if two topics have the=20
> same basename, they mean different things=85
>
> I=92m using a Hibernate back end.
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> Andrea
>

Re: [TM4J-users] SOLVED: Basename Merging

[Christoph F. <cf...@fo...>]

Hi

for the records: I just found out how to influence merging properties
with TMNav.

As Stefan stated, setting the property on the command line does not
work.

Instead you need to set the properties on a per-provider-base in
tmnav.xml (located in the tmnav-settings directory). The following is an
example that sets all the properties to their default values:

    <provider id=3D"inmemory-provider">
    =20
<factoryclassname>org.tm4j.topicmap.memory.TopicMapProviderFactoryImpl</fac=
toryclassname>
      <displayname>In-Memory-Provider</displayname>
      <description>A provider that stores topicmaps in
memory</description>
      <!-- influence merging -->=09
      <property key=3D"tm4j.make.consistent">false</property>
      <property key=3D"tm4j.merge.referenced.maps">false</property>
      <property key=3D"tm4j.name.based.merge">false</property>
      <property key=3D"tm4j.static.merge">false</property>
      =09
    </provider>


Hope that helps
c


Am Mi, den 14.07.2004 schrieb Stefan Lischke um 18:11:
> Hi Andrea,
>=20
> I'm also using TM4J without baseName merging. You can turn it off by=20
> simply changing the System.property :
>=20
> tm4j.name.based.merge=3Dfalse
>=20
> If you use the merging skript, just add it to the java call with
> -Dtm4j.name.based.merge=3Dfalse
>=20
> But as i stated in an earlier mail, you cannot use this when working
> with TMNav, so you can't visualize TopicMaps which contain Topics with
> same BaseNames.
>=20
> Stefan
>=20
>=20
> Andrea Carradori wrote:
>=20
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am looking for a way to deactivate the automatic merging of topics
> > basing on basenames. I want two topics to merge only if they have
> the=20
> > same Subject Indicator: it could be that, even if two topics have
> the=20
> > same basename, they mean different things=85
> >
> > I=92m using a Hibernate back end.
> >
> > Thanks for your help!
> >
> > Andrea
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
> Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -=20
> digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,=20
> unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
> _______________________________________________
> Tm4j-users mailing list
> Tm4...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tm4j-users
--=20
Christoph Froehlich <cf...@fo...>

Re: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging

[Christoph F. <cf...@fo...>]

HI=20


Am Mi, den 14.07.2004 schrieb Stefan Lischke um 18:11:
> Hi Andrea,
>=20
> I'm also using TM4J without baseName merging. You can turn it off by=20
> simply changing the System.property :
>=20
> tm4j.name.based.merge=3Dfalse
>=20
> If you use the merging skript, just add it to the java call with
> -Dtm4j.name.based.merge=3Dfalse
>=20
> But as i stated in an earlier mail, you cannot use this when working
> with TMNav, so you can't visualize TopicMaps which contain Topics with
> same BaseNames.
>=20
same result here. It seems impossible to disable name based merging with
tmnav. Unfortunately I do not understand why.


You can certainly pass the system property when calling tmnav and it
gets set as expected.It seems that tm4j does not care about it.


Maybe it's the way panckoucke implements merging.=20
It calls
 TopicMapProvider.mergeTopicMap(TopicMap baseTopicMap,=20
                                Locator  externalTopicMap,
                                Topic[] addedThemes).

Printing=20
  System.getProperty("tm4j.name.based.merge");=20
just before the call to mergeTopicMap(...) shows the value as excpected
(as passed as an argument to the VM at TMNav startup).

So, should panckoucke call another method?



My second thought is that maybe not every provider implements the
switch. I checked it with the in-memory-provider. Is it perhaps a
feature of the hibernate backend?


By the way. I did browse the 0.9.5 docs and did not find anything about
this switch. Is it documentated anywhere?

bye
c





> Stefan
>=20
>=20
> Andrea Carradori wrote:
>=20
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am looking for a way to deactivate the automatic merging of topics
> > basing on basenames. I want two topics to merge only if they have
> the=20
> > same Subject Indicator: it could be that, even if two topics have
> the=20
> > same basename, they mean different things=85
> >
> > I=92m using a Hibernate back end.
> >
> > Thanks for your help!
> >
> > Andrea
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
> Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -=20
> digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,=20
> unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
> _______________________________________________
> Tm4j-users mailing list
> Tm4...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tm4j-users
--=20
Christoph Froehlich <cf...@fo...>

Re: [TM4J-users] Basename Merging

[Kal A. <ka...@te...>]

That is strange - looking through the code, the name-based merging code
in the in-memory backend does check for this property when a scoped name
changes. I wonder if the parsing is somehow bypassing this (it shouldn't
be...) I'll have to take a closer look and maybe try and write a test
case that fails for this.=20

Cheers,

Kal

On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 18:18, Christoph Froehlich wrote:
> HI=20
>=20
>=20
> Am Mi, den 14.07.2004 schrieb Stefan Lischke um 18:11:
> > Hi Andrea,
> >=20
> > I'm also using TM4J without baseName merging. You can turn it off by=20
> > simply changing the System.property :
> >=20
> > tm4j.name.based.merge=3Dfalse
> >=20
> > If you use the merging skript, just add it to the java call with
> > -Dtm4j.name.based.merge=3Dfalse
> >=20
> > But as i stated in an earlier mail, you cannot use this when working
> > with TMNav, so you can't visualize TopicMaps which contain Topics with
> > same BaseNames.
> >=20
> same result here. It seems impossible to disable name based merging with
> tmnav. Unfortunately I do not understand why.
>=20
>=20
> You can certainly pass the system property when calling tmnav and it
> gets set as expected.It seems that tm4j does not care about it.
>=20
>=20
> Maybe it's the way panckoucke implements merging.=20
> It calls
>  TopicMapProvider.mergeTopicMap(TopicMap baseTopicMap,=20
>                                 Locator  externalTopicMap,
>                                 Topic[] addedThemes).
>=20
> Printing=20
>   System.getProperty("tm4j.name.based.merge");=20
> just before the call to mergeTopicMap(...) shows the value as excpected
> (as passed as an argument to the VM at TMNav startup).
>=20
> So, should panckoucke call another method?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> My second thought is that maybe not every provider implements the
> switch. I checked it with the in-memory-provider. Is it perhaps a
> feature of the hibernate backend?
>=20
>=20
> By the way. I did browse the 0.9.5 docs and did not find anything about
> this switch. Is it documentated anywhere?
>=20
> bye
> c
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > Stefan
> >=20
> >=20
> > Andrea Carradori wrote:
> >=20
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am looking for a way to deactivate the automatic merging of topics
> > > basing on basenames. I want two topics to merge only if they have
> > the=20
> > > same Subject Indicator: it could be that, even if two topics have
> > the=20
> > > same basename, they mean different things=E2=80=A6
> > >
> > > I=E2=80=99m using a Hibernate back end.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help!
> > >
> > > Andrea
> > >
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
> > Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -=20
> > digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,=20
> > unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tm4j-users mailing list
> > Tm4...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tm4j-users
--=20
Kal Ahmed <ka...@te...>
techquila