[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [xtm-wg] Re : Topic Naming Constraint (again)
My previous answer was written before reading Steves' and Michel's interventions. I am somehow forced to reinder to all these arguments about strength of scope, and benefit for authors to clearly define names they give to Topics. As a "pedagogue" I *have* to agree on the benefit of forcing somehow people to find proper name for things. Unless we throw away ontologies. But it does not change my opinion that merging based on names alone, even scoped ones, is at high risks of inconsistencies. But I'm afraid the examples given in the debate are only taken in "first floor" topics, that is simple topics which would be given plain names in natural language. I think we have to imagine the full strength of the paradigm will show when managing Topics of upper conceptual level, like statements on Topics, statements on statements, topics of which subjects are associations, and so on. Let's take an imaginary - but non that much farfetched - example : In 2003, famous Dr K. writes a best-seller after his son, a serial killer, has been sentenced to death and executed in Texas. In this book, he fully arguments against the death penalty. A raging debate is following the release of this book. "Opinion of Dr K. about death penalty, as expressed in its famous best-seller" makes quite a good non-adressable subject for a widely documented Topic, with many occurrences in local, national and international media. And suppose this Topic could be included in some Amnesty International Topic Map, playing some role in some "argumenting" association. Will such a subject be identified/searched/retrieved through its full name(s) - scoped or not ? Or is it doomed to be split in "namable" subjects and so many Topics : Dr K. ; Texas ; death penalty etc ? I imagine too that as soon as "little" Topic Maps will be released on-line, many authors will prefer to use these Maps - as a whole - as addressable subjects, leading to a sort of fractal structure, maybe more manageable, than merging Topics until they grow out of human readibility. And will they need - and will they be able - to put "meaningful names" on them ? Only questions ... Maybe these examples are too far away from present applications. But I guess we try to build something which is here to stay, so we've better try and imagine a little what questions will raise next and what users will do of it, and if the tool is forged to tackle them or not. Good night --------------------------------------- Bernard Vatant bernard@universimmedia.com www.universimmedia.com "Building Knowledge" --------------------------------------- To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC