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

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

Whilst in principle I agree with Bernard, we are in fact working 
- in a very limited timescale
- with artefacts (topic maps) which are NOT in the mind
- with artefacts (topic maps) which are moreover incapable of addressing
directly anything outside themselves other than "resources" which are not in
the mind either. 

I saw the "big picture" we discussed in CMS as clarifying that point, at
least, and making it clear that the relationships between the
things-in-the-mind, and the resources acting as surrogates for them in a
topic map, - however fascinating - had to be out of scope for XTM, if we are
to complete our task. 

When we ge widespread adoption, & various of us are designing topic maps for
large/difficult applications, I am sure that we will be drawing on a range
of perspectives and methodologies for designing relevant/useful concept
structures - and that that experience will give rise to another order of
debate altogether about TM design techniques & conceptual modelling. I look
forward to it...

Cheers

Ann W.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard VATANT [mailto:b.vatant@wanadoo.fr]
> Sent: 25 October 2000 10:50
> To: Daniel Rivers-Moore; Jean DELAHOUSSE; xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> Cc: Jack Park; Mary Keller
> Subject: [xtm-wg] Topics, Subjects, Things ( XTM-CMS)
> 
> 
> 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
> 

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/4/_/337252/_/972470149/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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