[topicmapmail] Context, Meaning, and Topic Hierarchies

[Lance Otis]

I have been following your discussion relative to determination of
hierarchical sets of topics based on agreements within a community of
contributors. Here are some observations, some of which are based on
inferences drawn from your discussions:

1. There is no natural order to a hierarchical set of topics.
2. Words are symbolic abstractions of objects and ideas - topics or
classifications are higher level abstractions of sets objects and ideas that
share some common attributes.
3. Grouping and classification of symbols for objects and ideas is a human
invention to simplify communication.
4. There must be an implicit agreement on the general meaning of the
classifications within the community of those using them.

We must acknowledge that there is no one set of ordered topics that will fit
all possible needs. Needs change, view points differ. What is one man's root
is another man's leaf. Accordingly, topic sets must be flexible, adaptable,
and mutable. Topic maps must be multi-dimensional and capable of inversion
so that they are viewable from the top-down or the bottom-up. Any
sub-category must be able to be treated as a top-level category. We must be
pragmatic: build something that works for a specific set of needs, but build
it to allow change and mutation.