[xtm-wg] Topics, Subjects, Things ( XTM-CMS)

["Bernard VATANT" <b.vatant@wanadoo.fr>]

Comments on the Swindon minutes, from a "completely external viewpoint":

Daniel wrote :

< On the left of the picture are the Subjects. These are in a human mind.
In the middle of the picture is the Topic Map. This is in the computer.
On the right of the picture is the Real World and the Things it contains >

I develop elsewhere the viewpoint that trying to map "Things of the Real
World" is a questionable approach, and that splitting the real world in
"things" to represent and operate on it is the first and most important
conceptual work, both personal (inside our brain or "mind") and
intersubjective. Hence "things" are not given out there, their definition
emerge from an intersubjective agreement process, pushed by the fact we
need these collective definitions for communication and action. (see
various exchanges on "nature of things")
We cannot map or implement or even think about anything else than symbolic
representations, the so-called "subjects". I prefer the word "concepts",
because it refers to some mental and social building activity, whereas
"subjects" looks more like metaphysical abstractions sitting for eternity
in the middle of nowhere.
So I would consider the focus should be on : how do we map a given
organisation of "concepts" ?  That's what TM are all about as I understand
them.

In that approach, and linked to the question of closure, I tend to think
that we should seek strictly one-to-one correspondance between concepts and
topics (in a given context), assuming that an association is a topic.
(Seems to me, BTW, concerning that last point in the ontologies I'm working
on at the moment, the main types of topics can easily define the main types
of associations, if we consider that in any association, a topic plays an
"associating role".)

So we'd have some clarification in the debate about TM and ontologies.

Building ontologies deals with real world, it's the somehow mysterious and
complex realm of intersubjective agreement, natural languages and contexts
mentioned above. TM standards have not much to do there, except maybe give
some more intellectual tools to help in that neverending collaborative and
social work, hard to manage like anything in the real world.

The TM work should be after that first stage, the mapping of the concepts
structure, translation of natural language concepts in computer-language.
Confusing the two stages so defined will result in neverending mismatches.


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/4/_/337252/_/972467765/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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