Re: [topicmaps-comment] Re: RDF/Topic Maps: late/lazy reification vs.early/preemptive reification

["Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>]

[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