[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [topicmaps-comment] Re: RDF/Topic Maps: late/lazy reification vs.early/preemptive reification
[Tom Passin:] > I think that an association looks very much like a > conceptual relation in Conceptual Graphs, and > basically anything in a CG is an assertion. A topic > is (or could be) much like a CG concept. A CG is > contains either a concept or some number of > associations (with their attached concepts). One key > difference is that CG concepts can be recursive - a > concept can be defined by a conceptual (sub)graph. Uh, on the contrary, Topic Maps are no less recursive than Conceptual Graphs. A topic *can* be defined by a topic map. Indeed, TMs deliberately and loudly leave unconstrained -- in every way! -- the character of subject indicators. A topic map (or, for that matter, a conceptual graph) is a perfectly good kind of subject indicator. > So yes, I do agree, and I find I frequently talk > about "making statements" and "making assertions" > when talking about topic maps. Cool. So do I. The assertion-centric view is the easiest and simplest way to think about and to explain what a topic map really is. -Steve -- Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant srn@coolheads.com voice: +1 972 359 8160 fax: +1 972 359 0270 1527 Northaven Drive Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC