Re: [topicmaps-comment] Topic maps 'float above' resources?

[Robert Barta <rho@bigpond.net.au>]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 11:20:22PM -0500, Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> > Maybe we should slowly remove the 'map' and 'terrain' distinction from our
> > tutorials. It was pretty arbitrary in the first place, IMHO.
> >
> 
> Actually, that distinction speaks reasonably well to me.  There are
> addressable resources that are used as occurrences, and there are concepts,
> represented by topics.

Right. And as soon as I have these topics in a map (or somewhere else), they
become addressable themselves. This blurs a bit the 'inside/outside' approach
of the 'map/terrain' world and ...

> I realize that one can concoct all kinds of examples where the occurrences
> exist solely within a topic map, or don't represent things in the world that
> can actually be dereferenced, but that is a layer of sophistication that
> does not remove the distinction (for me, at least).

... to map (a) a mathematical theory, (b) the structure of a software package or
(c) an Internet XML standard might not have _any_ relationship to the 'real-world'.
Maybe we are just repeating a reification discussion the TM inventors had years 
ago...

> This bridge metaphor can be effective in helping newcomers to understand the
> idea of topic maps, I think.

Yes, it makes explaining easier since most people understand bookmarks
in their browser. And why most of them are messy :-)
 
\rho