[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] Reification - why it came back in the CM
I just want to second Bernard's excellent summary of our view on reification. I'm really glad you were there in Paris, Bernard! (Let that be a lesson to me!) And I'm going to quote his posting in extenso, even though that's not really good netiquette, just so everyone can have a chance to read it once more :-) Reification is *not* difficult. Steve At 22:16 26/01/01 +0100, Bernard Vatant wrote: >I'll try to explain for those who were not in the CM discussion in Paris >why and how "reification" was brought back. > >The very meaning given for that word * in XTM scope* is very simple : it's >the process through which a Topic is created. >Before reification, there is "something", addressable or not, resource or >not, inside or outside the system, inside or outside the Topic Map itself, >candidate to be a good subject - like *any* thing whatsoever. >After reification, you have a brand new Topic in the system, of which the >above "something" is the subject. >No more. That's dreadly simple. If somebody claims it can't be that simple, >that it's a very more subtle concept I widely misunderstood, please explain >to me where I missed the point. > >This very action of creating a Topic is a fundamental process, whether it's >made by an human author, creating the Topic "from scratch", or a system >process, for instance creating a Topic out of any association in the TM, or >any data in a data base etc. >Given this process is a basic concept, it has to be pointed to and given a >name, if only to show that Topics don't exist to begin with - as such - in >the middle of nowhere, but only subjects are there, which have to be "made >real", that is processed into definite computable objects of a definite >type. > >Well, why the choice of "reification" ? Because it's the very meaning of >the word : make something "real" for the system, in the sense it can handle >it, compute it, merge it etc ... What other word would fit : "topicization" >? Gads ! Other ideas ? > >Another debate : >RDF uses it. OK. with another meaning. OK. That point was considered too. >What was said is that reification defined in XTM scope and reification >defined in RDF scope could be considered later as subtypes of a more >general class of process, which, IMO, could be defined by something like >the following : > >"Reification is a process through which a computable/addressable object - a >resource - is created in a system, as a proxy for a non >computable/addressable object" > >This definition is a "relative" one, meaning by that the definition of >addressable/computable depends on the system and the nature of the objects >it is able to handle. But my hunch is it fits both RDF and XTM particular >"reification(s)". Maybe some RDF guy around there coud tell if that makes >sense or not. > >Well ... that was my 0.02 Euros for the "Grand Semantic Unification" <:o) > >Bernard -- Steve Pepper, Chief Technology Officer <pepper@ontopia.net> Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3 Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps) Ontopia AS, Maridalsveien 99B, N-0461 Oslo, Norway. http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-22805465 GSM: +47-90827246 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~> eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/980694553/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> 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