[xtm-wg] Subjects and occurrences (Re: "subject-descriptor-ness")

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

<Steve>
The proposed syntax model does not provide a way for a topic node (a
subject) to be an occurrence of a topic. We are implicitly taking some
philosophical positions with this design:

* That subjects (and their proxies, topic nodes) are *not* resources,
and therefore cannot be regarded as occurrences.

* That relationships between subjects (topic nodes) are fundamentally
different from the relationships between subjects and their
occurrences. The proposed syntax model requires that relationships
between subjects be expressed via <association>s, and relationships
between subjects and occurrences be expressed via <occurrence>s.
</Steve>

Ha ! That makes great sense to me. I was quite afraid lately by all that
seek for formal abstract closure. Steve reminds us clearly that maps are
maps, and should not be confused with territories they map, if we want
anyone with common sense be able to understand what it's all about, and
know when dealing with the map or browsing the territory.
<boastful> That's how I understood it to begin with, was very perplex about
it lately, reading all the debate here, and am quite happy to see my first
impression might have be the good one </boastful>

I'll put it another way, to make sure I got it well (before trying to put
it in French for evangelization of my barbarian lands)  : even if <topic>s
in principle may be « anything whatsoever »:

* The map is a « conceptual level » over the « ground level » formed by
occurrences. Confusion between those two levels will always result in
conceptual mismatches and incoherences,  and certainly technical bugs.
* Relations at the map level are conceptual (semantic) associations between
concepts (or subjects to follow the standard vocabulary here). The map
author is working at this level. A good way to know if one is indeed
working at this level is that the subjects and associations *make sense*
independently of the existence of any « physical » occurrences. The making
of sense is whatever you like in your view of the world anyway ... but it's
out of the field of syntaxic problems.
* Occurrences are « things of the world » in the sense Ann pointed when we
had this exchange about the « nature of things », that is : implemented
resources lurking somewhere in the cyberspace.

Consequence : an occurrence can't be considered as a subject.

( So maybe a to-be XTM-editor should have some built-in coherence control,
preventing authors from any level mismatching ? )

Have fun in Dallas !

Bernard VATANT
b.vatant@wanadoo.fr
www.universimmedia.com



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/337252/_/973862958/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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