Re: [topicmaps-comment] RE: [sc34wg3] Re: PMTM4 and XTM Layer 1.0

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

[Bernard Vatant:]

> How can we transfer the flexibility of this local and
> transient agreement process into system-system
> conversation and human- system conversation, and
> avoid at the same time the potential resulting
> conflicts and ambiguities? That must be grounded on
> formal reference to subject identifiers, the most
> possible independent from characteristics. Those
> identifiers won't ever be able to tell what the
> subject "is", but should tell who has set an
> agreement to use it, for what and in what
> context. For example, I know a standard is a standard
> not by looking at what it *is*, but at who has made
> it, who has recommended it, and who used it and for
> what. And if I use it myself and make that usage
> known, it's a little more of a standard.

> In the choice of a tool for identification, our main
> concern should therefore be: will this tool provide a
> valid process of agreement in the context it will be
> used? rather than: will this tool really identify the
> subject?

I agree with you, Bernard.  

Do you ever send a note and later think, "Oh, crap, I
should have said..." ?  Well, here's something I have
decided, post facto, that I should have said about the
topic created by my fictional Joe, and to which my
fictional Betty and Natalie added assertions:

  It was perfectly OK for Joe not to provide a
  compelling, unambiguous, precise subject indicator
  for his topic, as long as Joe was the only person who
  would ever edit his topic map, or merge it with the
  topic maps of others.  It was also OK for people
  other than Joe to *use* his topic, even without a
  subject indicator, at their own risk.  The potential
  for really dangerous confusion -- topics with
  drifting, ambiguous subjects -- arises when Joe's
  topic map becomes a part of a new topic map created
  by somebody else (or even by Joe, if Joe is suffering
  from memory loss, dementia, etc.).

  My point is that reliable topic maps created by any
  kind of collaborative process really require precise,
  unambiguous, compelling subject indicators, and these
  subject indicators had better be identified
  immediately, whenever a topic is first created.

In fairness, I should mention that Martin Bryan has
been saying something very similar to this for many
years.  If I now understand you, I think you were right
all along, Martin.

-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