[tm-pubsubj-comment] Re: published subject assertions

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

> * Lars Marius Garshol
> |
> | So the requirement that you want satisfied is that it should be
> | possible to get at the core published subject assertions[1] from the
> | published subject identifier (URI)?
>
> * Thomas Bandholtz
> |
> | Exactly - without any statement about [1] currently.
> | I would not introduce the term "published subject assertions".
> | ISO 13250 clearly defines "topic topic characteristics" this is all
> | we need.  We should not start with Adam & Eve again and again.

* Lars Marius Garshol
> That's a valid point.

IMO it is not. I stick to the point that when we speak about (published or not) subjects,
we are *outside* the topic maps terminology. We are about subjects, not about their formal
representation as topics. Subjects have no *formal characteristics*, but in their very
definition - which is made outside topic maps realm - you might find (non necessarily
formal) assertions. This is exactly where you get out of the potential recursivity trap of
topic maps.

For a botanist, an assertion like:

"Fagales is a subclass of Dicotyledones"

whatever it "means"... belongs to the definition of Fagales, and has to be made distinct
of any formal characteristic of a topic representing the class "Fagales" in a topic map.
It is a non-formal assertion inherent to the subject definition.

Might seem subtle, but for me it's fundamental and not restarting from Adam & Eve, just
putting distinct names on distinct things ...

Bernard