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

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Bernard Vatant
| 
| 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. 

Well, yes and no. "Formal subject assertions" are electronic
statements about the subjects, and so by their very nature divorced
from the subjects. The only problem with the term "topic
characteristic assignment" in this context is that it is specific to
topic maps.

| Subjects have no *formal characteristics*, 

Of course not, but "published subject assertions" are still formal
characteristics. 

| 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.

Sure, but then it's not a "published subject assertion" any more, is
it?

In any case, the primary reason why I wrote "That is a valid point" is
that I feel this issue is a cul-de-sac. Let's talk about something
more productive.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >