[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] The Topic Naming Constraint
The debate around the TNC is very interesting indeed. But I think it missed somehow so far the real core of the question. The spec is as it is. It's surely very consistent from a computer viewpoint :) But there are and will always be ambiguities with names and identities. Not because of anything broken with the spec. If there is a place where something is broken, inconsistent, ambiguous, whatever, it's in the natural language, the one which affects names to subjects, or, to be more accurate, the one which invents names and then *pretend* they represent subjects and sort them out. This process is very ambiguous and every other subject is a moving target. How can anyone with some common sense imagine that, by some magic, this ambiguity of subject will disappear because we represent it as a topic in a topic map ? There is no way to do that. A subject is not the same animal that a computer object with a defined id, and it'll never be, even if we pretend that by the reification process. The ambiguity will not disappear, and indeed it will even appear very well ! The best we can hope, and it always has worked this way, is that the new structuring tool acts back in our use of natural language and pulls us towards more accuracy in it. It's what science, logic, maths have done for centuries, tracking such moving subjects as time, space, energy, measure, life ... and lawyers too, tracking more moving and ambiguous ones like democracy, freedom, justice, rights ... The ambiguities and weird mergings we'll find coming out of the TM processes are indeed very good things. They will learn us to be less arrogant about our language and its crazy pretention to grasp the complexity of universe. That important metaphysical stuff being said. On a technical viewpoint : we merge Topic A, with PSI1, with Topic B, with PSI2, out of TNC, and we have now Topic C with two PSI which look inconsistent. What has happened ? - If the two topics were created distinct, with different PSI, by the same author considering them as distinct subjects, he should have managed to give them distinct names. "Please say what you mean". Find a way, like in natural language. - Maybe it's because the subject is controversial. Suppose we have two different teams developing a TMQL and each pretending they have "the" TMQL ... well, you can't ask the computers to settle that conflict, only to show it off : TMQL is a controversial subject, they are two of them, pick your choice ... - If the topics were created out of some automatic process, well, there again, it shows the inconsistencies of the stuff which was processed, not of the process. If you try some semantic analysis tool on this text I've just written and represent it as a TM, certainly some inconsistencies will show off, pushing me to come back to what I meant and disambiguate it a little further. Bernard ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~> eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://us.click.yahoo.com/kWP7PD/pYNCAA/4ihDAA/2n6YlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC