RE: [xtm-wg] XTM-CMS: Set theory stuff

["Wrightson, Ann" <Ann.Wrightson@sweetandmaxwell.co.uk>]

"Subjects" are a fairly fuzzy area in the Topic Maps community - in the
document you are responding to, I tried to mirror faithfully Steve
Newcombe's usual terminology, to aid my communicative purpose within the
group; in brief, a "subject" is anything whatsoever - and also a
"dimensionless point" which is only get-at-able via its names-with-roles,
roles-in-associations, and occurs-as relations with particulars (resources).
These properties suggest to me that "Subjects" are (roughly speaking!) types
within the domain in which the Topic Map's resources are regarded as being
(wrt the intended purpose of the Topic Map). I would be very happy to
discuss this area in the meeting-including-you which Daniel is planning,
since I think it is indeed an area which needs greater clarity.

My view re *information* is that Topic Maps are both information carriers
and information channels, and that this is by virtue of their structural &
referential relationships to other forms of information, and also by virtue
of their quasi-natural language content (eg names). I'm currently working on
a theoretical picture of this, and would welcome an opportunity to discuss
that with you too.

Cheers

Ann W.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Angus [mailto:chris.angus@btinternet.com]
> Sent: 19 October 2000 11:05
> To: xtm-wg@egroups.com
> Subject: [xtm-wg] XTM-CMS: Set theory stuff
> 
> 
> Ann
> 
> In 3 you use the phrase "which are Subjects of the 
> information in the Topic
> Map".  I feel unhappy about it at two levels.  Firstly 
> "information in the
> Topic Map".  I do not believe that it is clear whether what 
> is meant is the
> information carried directly by the Topic Map or the 
> information that is
> addressed or referenced by the Topic Map or the combination 
> of the two.
> Secondly the phrasing means (to me at least) that it is not 
> clear which of
> the possible subjects are intended, are we talking about the 
> subjects that
> are the 'themes' of the Topic Map or all the topics over 
> which it ranges?
> 
> In 4 we have "...Subjects, (these, at least, are called 
> Topics)".  There is
> obviously an implication in the phrasing that may be there 
> are no Topics
> that are not Subjects, but the existence of non-Subject 
> Topics is not ruled
> out.  However in 5 you talk only of topic associations being relations
> amongst Subjects.
> 
> In 5a where you say "Each member of the set as in 5 is a 
> set", is the second
> set the set of subjects that are the targets of the relation 
> (i.e. if it is
> a binary topic association is the cardinality of the set 2)?
> 
> Chris Angus
> Home: +44 (0) 16977 41504
> SSI: +44 (0) 207 934 4960
> Fax: +44 (0) 16977 41666
> Chris.Angus@BTinternet.com or Chris.C.Angus@opc.shell.com
> 
> 
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> 
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: 
> xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> 

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get FREE long-distance phone calls on Tellme!
Dial 1-800-555-TELL, say "Phone Booth"
http://click.egroups.com/1/9816/4/_/337252/_/972027183/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com