[sc34wg3] Comments on Tau model
Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:32:08 +0200
Robert Barta wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:12:43AM +0200, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> > >This may work when creating shoes, mobiles, patios, application
> > >software (ha!) and other commodities in a market. I doubt this is a
> > >viable way to create (a) an infrastructure or (b) a new information
> > >model like TMs want to become.
> > Ah! That's what you understand Topic Maps (as a paradigm, not the docs)
> > 'are'. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you mean by
> > - infrastructure
> > - information model
> > Can you explain or define the terms?
> Better not, because for these definitions I would need other terms,
> and for these as well. I do not fancy much to be hunted over "the
> plains of meaningless words".
Well, fair enough....OTH, you *do* have an understanding and appearantly
/tau satisfies it. Interestingly, it does not satisfy *my* understanding,
so I would be soooo happy if you could define/explain the terms (loosely).
I PROMISE, I won't do nitpicking on the language :o)
> > The reason I ask is because I believe that within the TM community,
> > there are several very different understandings what TMs 'are' and
> > thus different people approach the question of 'what is the
> > underlying nature of TMs?' very differently. Unfortunately, ISO13250
> > does not really provide a compelling answer.
> I see it similar. That, and EXACTLY that should be the motivation to
> formalize TMs properly. Then everyone can EXACTLY voice what he think
> is good or bad about a particular formalization.
> No more second-guessing
> what "reification", "representation", "rumstification", etc. could mean.
> (I found Murray's and Betrand's broader insights VERY interesting, though.)
> To paraphrase a fellow countryman:
> "Whereof one cannot write a Perl program,
> thereof one must be silent."
> sc34wg3 mailing list
Jan Algermissen http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer http://www.gooseworks.org