[xtm-wg] Thank you! A Few Thoughts on Terminology

[Andrius Kulikauskas <ms@ms.lt>]

I want to thank you for your tremendous work.  I have only read a
fraction, but I've read it very carefully.  I focused on the
Terminology, and I've actually made a diagram of it all.  Your
descriptions are quite good, some of them excellent.  In particular, I
liked your definition of Subject and that inspired me to try to unravel
the whole thing from there.

Here are some nitpicking points, regarding the Terminology section.  The
things that I don't understand, maybe others won't either. Here are the
few that stand out:


Topic Occurrences
I don't understand the distinction between 'topic occurrence' and
'resource' (addressable information resource).  I think the definition
for addressable information resource is very clear, simple and central. 
The definition for topic occurrence is unfocused, indirect and suspect. 
What does 'information' 
mean?  Is it in the mind, or in the computer?  What is the difference
between 'information' and 'information resource'?  Why is the concept of
'occurrence' 
necessary?  If it is just for legacy issues (which is legitimate), I
think it would be fair and noble to say so.  The word "occurrence" is
itself used here in a very abstract and unhelpfully nonintuitive way. 
Most importantly, what is the relationship between 'topic occurrence'
and 'resource'?  If there is a distinction, it would be most helpful to
make it clear.

Topic Name and Base Name
I don't understand if there is any real distinction between 'topic name'
and 'base name'.  It seems very subtle.  My reading is that it's
ambiguous.  They can mean the same thing (the "topic characteristic"
which is the name, whatever that means).  Or they can have slightly
different meanings: 'topic name' is the string of characters 
within the <baseNameString> element, whereas 'base name' is the entire
<baseNameString> element (including the tags).  In other words, I don't
understand.  It would be helpful to make the distinction very clear, or
to say very clearly that there is no distinction.

Topic Type #3
In the definition of Topic Type, #3, I think there is ambiguity (or at
least real complexity) in the word "is".  It says, Topic Type: "A topic
whose subject is a class of topic."  I first read that to mean: Topic
Type X is a topic X whose subject S is a class Y of topic X.  And then I
wondered, what does the "is" mean?  I started thinking confusing things
about the subject indicators.  (I came to the conclusion that, given a
<TOPICREF>, you don't know if it's intended as a topic or topic type
(until you look for <INSTANCEOF>, which lets you know - but that might
be made more explicit). I read it again, and then I thought that the
second instance of "topic" means "topics" in the plural.  I guess it
looks like your using topic in that short sentence in two very different
ways topic=X, but also as Topic(s).  Can this be simpler?

Topic Type #2
Definition #2 seems ambiguous (the word "the").  Are there, or are there
not, other kinds of classes, not specified by <instanceof>?  It could be
supposed either way, which is confusing.  In other words, do topic type
and class mean the same thing?

I learn so much from reading.  It's inspired me.
Thank you!

Andrius

Andrius Kulikauskas
Director
Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt
+1 (559) 735-0262
in Visalia, California through June, 2001

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/981610020/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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