I was talking about the thing that we conceptually use to represent a
subject - irrespective of its representation in some computer system. We
conceptually require this thing as a place to hang our statements about
the subject (assertions), but in itself it provide *no information at
all*.
Anyway, all this was only to say that I don't believe there is a subject
"the topic foo" that can be reified - you can of course reify the
<topic> foo or the topic record foo in a database and it is for these
concrete representations that we may want to provide metadata.
Cheers,
Kal
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 02:44, Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> Kal Ahmed wrote:
>
> > I'm not talking about reifying a <topic> element or reifying some
> > construct in a topic map processing engine. I'm talking about reifying a
> > topic construct. In the "binding point" model of topic maps, the topic
> > is essentially nothing but a place to hang assertions - in other words
> > it comes into being by a user making an assertion about a subject. So it
> > is the assertion that is created by the user, the topic being a
> > side-effect.
> >
>
> Well, now I don't undersatnd what you mean by "topic construct". If you
> don't mean a topic element in an xtm document, and you don't mean a
> structure in a computer (that we conventionally call a "topic"),
> whatever do you mean?
>
> In topic maps, a topic represents a subject for the purposes of computer
> processing. If by "come into being by a user making an assertion about
> a subject" you mean that id a topic id is refered to (say, in an
> association) and no topic with that id is yet known to the system, then
> the system would construct a topic with that id, I would say that you
> now have a topic, so what is the problem (although you don't necessarily
> know its subject at this point)?
>
> If you mean that some set of associations imply the existence of a
> subject that is up to now not represented in the computer by a topic,
> then you could have the computer create such a topic.
>
> If you mean something else, would you please explain some more?
>
> And I think we have to be careful about the use of the word "assertion".
> It might be used to mean specifically an association in a topic map,
> generally in a normal English usage sense, or colloquially as a
> ahorthand for "statement" or "claim". In the strict topic map sense,
> you can have associations (or call the "assertions" if this is the new
> jargon), but that refers to computer structures relating topics in the
> topic map. They are but proxies for the real subjects and the real
> relations between them.
>
> I have a sense that several uses of the word are being mixed together
> here, but I may be wrong about that because I'm not sure quite what you
> are getting at.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom P
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
--
Kal Ahmed <kal-5x+ggncFKvmB+jHODAdFcQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
techquila
|
