Re: [xtm-wg] Reification - why it came back in the CM

[Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>]

I just want to second Bernard's excellent summary of our view
on reification. I'm really glad you were there in Paris, Bernard!
(Let that be a lesson to me!)

And I'm going to quote his posting in extenso, even though that's
not really good netiquette, just so everyone can have a chance to
read it once more :-)

Reification is *not* difficult.

Steve


At 22:16 26/01/01 +0100, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>I'll try to explain for those who were not in the CM discussion in Paris
>why and how "reification" was brought back.
>
>The very meaning given for that word * in XTM scope* is very simple : it's
>the process through which a Topic is created.
>Before reification, there is "something", addressable or not, resource or
>not, inside or outside the system, inside or outside the Topic Map itself,
>candidate to be a good subject - like *any* thing whatsoever.
>After reification, you have a brand new Topic in the system, of which the
>above "something" is the subject.
>No more. That's dreadly simple. If somebody claims it can't be that simple,
>that it's a very more subtle concept I widely misunderstood, please explain
>to me where I missed the point.
>
>This very action of creating a Topic is a fundamental process, whether it's
>made by an human author, creating the Topic "from scratch", or a system
>process, for instance creating a Topic out of any association in the TM, or
>any data in a data base etc.
>Given this process is a basic concept, it has to be pointed to and given a
>name, if only to show that Topics don't exist to begin with - as such - in
>the middle of nowhere, but only subjects are there, which have to be "made
>real", that is processed into definite computable objects of a definite
>type.
>
>Well, why the choice of "reification" ? Because it's the very meaning of
>the word : make something "real" for the system, in the sense it can handle
>it, compute it, merge it etc ... What other word would fit : "topicization"
>? Gads ! Other ideas ?
>
>Another debate :
>RDF uses it. OK. with another meaning. OK. That point was considered too.
>What was said is that reification defined in XTM scope and reification
>defined in RDF scope could be considered later as subtypes of a more
>general class of process, which, IMO, could be defined by something like
>the following :
>
>"Reification is a process through which a computable/addressable object - a
>resource - is created in a system, as a proxy for a non
>computable/addressable object"
>
>This definition is a "relative" one, meaning by that the definition of
>addressable/computable depends on the system and the nature of the objects
>it is able to handle. But my hunch is it fits both RDF and XTM particular
>"reification(s)". Maybe some RDF guy around there coud tell if that makes
>sense or not.
>
>Well ... that was my 0.02 Euros for the "Grand Semantic Unification" <:o)
>
>Bernard


--
Steve Pepper, Chief Technology Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Maridalsveien 99B, N-0461 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/  phone: +47-22805465  GSM: +47-90827246


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/980694553/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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