[topicmaps-comment] Everchanging subjects [Re: Notions have existence...]

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

[Steven R. Newcomb] 

"Nonetheless, the fact remains
that there is no point in creating or using a topic map
unless its creator has exactly one notion in mind as
the subject of each topic.  Topic maps simply aren't
meaningful unless each topic has exactly one changeless
and eternal subject.  When we choose to use a given
topic map, we demonstrate our faith that its creator
consistently complied with this fundamental discipline."

and elsewhere:

"Documents don't change.  They simply are. Information
in general has an eternal quality that is not found in
the universe of our five senses."

Amazing to put together those two excerpts of Steve's recent posts 
and see how *eternal* is present in both ... To say it abruptly, I 
view those idealist viewpoints as completely unsustainable, and it 
seems than I am more or less supported on that by various 
interventions of Tom, Ivan, Tony and Sam.

Documents don't change? Go figure ... But subject(s) represented 
in/by the documents? Moving targets! If there is nobody to use it, a 
document is not a document. It's just a chain of characters or a 
bunch of pixels on a piece of paper or whatever electronic support. 
A $10 billion check or Bill Gates' credit card have no value outside 
a complex system of information and communication called the 
market, and a topic map is meaningless outside a community of 
users making sense of its assertions.

So, where do you think the *changeless and eternal subject* could 
possibly live? 

In author's mind? Wishful thinking! And what if it's only on the 
author's mind, and not alike in user's mind? And there is absolutely 
no way to know about that. 

Out there in Plato's Realm of Ideas? Nobody here buys that 
concept anymore I hope. 

Embedded in the documents? See above.

So where? Nowhere absolutely outside an ongoing process, that -
again - I like to call conversation. The subject exists as long as it is 
used and exchanged about. Otherwise it dies out. And if it's living, 
it's moving more or less. Only dead things are changeless. Do we 
want a dead information and a dead knowledge? Certainly not!
I remember Ronald Poell telling me that in Notion System, there is 
some process for decaying over the time validity of subjects that 
have not been addressed. I found that a great idea indeed.

Hence I don't figure <subjectIndicator> addressing a dead 
document, but a place where the subject is alive. I'm amazed, 
Steve, that when you speak about Topic Maps, you seem to 
always consider (forever?) closed and immuable documents.
Go ask librarians if the simple task of keeping documents both 
*intact*, accessible and *alive* is not a full-time job? All makes me 
think that full-scale topic maps needed in industry and large 
information systems will be updated on the fly permanently, in 
clear that they will be living and changing documents. Otherwise 
they will be basically useless. I suppose Tony could expand on 
that very well. 

Bottom line. I was always amazed that Topic Maps specifications 
have not a word about so important features of information 
management dealing with time: validity span, updating, versioning, 
etc. And indeed topic maps authors have great difficulty to deal 
with that, otherwise than through farfetched manipulations on 
scope and unnatural creation of topics for every other interval of 
time. BTW in Mondeca software, every other object (including 
topics) can be affected very simple time validation attributes 
(begin - end) and that seems a very natural and useful feature to 
everyone ... except for XTM export of course :(

Maybe if we have not such natural ways to deal with time in Topic 
Maps, it's because some creator(s) of the paradigm had those 
absolute ideas on changelessness and eternity of subjects ?

Bernard




***********************************
Bernard Vatant - Consultant
bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
Mondeca - "Making Sense of Content"
www.mondeca.com
***********************************