[tcs-lc] Name-Name Relationships vs. Concept-Conceptrelationships

[Richard Pyle]

For what it's worth, I agree 100% with Gregor's points as outlined below.
But I suspect this is well beyond the "minor" catgeory, and thus probably
best left for a later discussion (i.e., after Sep. 30).

Aloha,
Rich

> Some points:
>
> - Controlling an enumeration is equally strong with controlling
> the sequence in
> schema.
>
> - Extending a sequence of elements is more difficult in an upgrade than
> extending an enumeration. That applies both to applications based
> on tcs and to
> the schema itself.
>
> - Fundamentally, the sequence of role-element-names is a
> collection, not a
> sequence. Order has no meaning here.
>
> - The two cases are fully separated by structure (in different
> context). Even
> if for nomenclatural relations the enumeration-value method would
> be used, it
> is impossible to mix the two purposes.
>
> - However, my gut feeling is that Nomenclatural relations are
> icomplete. If
> they aren't, any change in the codes will make them so. So
> extension of these
> relations (for valid reasons, not in an attempt to confuse with concepts)
> should be supported.
>
> - Finally, the similarity with LC does not convince me. the flattened out
> design of original LC was designed to allow flat table
> representation, which is
> a value. However, this is not preserved, at least two relations
> are collections
> rather than single.