[sc34wg3] What do we mean by reification?

[Steve Pepper]

The SAM and the RM contradict one another on the issue of
reification.

The SAM states (3.4.4 Reification):

   "Every topic represents one subject, and the relationship
   between the two is always one of representation. However, the
   term reification is used for situations where the subject
   represented by the topic is part of the topic map."

The RM says (2.31 reified):

   "Provided with a proxy. A topic map author reifies (literally,
   thing-ifies) a subject by creating a proxy for that subject.
   The reason for reifying a subject is to make it, in effect,
   addressable. Computers cannot address subjects (such as the
   subject which is the notion of love), but they can address
   certain kinds of proxies for subjects (such as a <topic>
   element whose subject is love, or a node in a topic map graph
   whose subject is love). Things that can be addressed can be
   processed, collated, merged, rendered, etc.

   For example, the marriage between John Smith and Mary Jones
   Smith is a relationship that cannot be addressed by a
   computer. However, an assertion that reifies that relationship
   is addressable, and therefore it is possible for that
   assertion to play roles in other assertions that, in effect,
   can make statements about the marriage of John and Mary."

There is no problem with the example given in the RM, which
would be considered a refied association in the SAM. The
inconsistency lies in whether the relationship between a topic
and its corresponding subject is one of reification or not. The
SAM says clearly that it is not; the RM implies that it is. At
the very least we need to get our story straight.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246