[topicmapmail] Re: Context, Meaning, and Topic Hierarchies

[Martin Bryan]

Lance Otis wrote:
> 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.

Well said Lance. I have been having some further thoughts on the relationships between topic maps and ontologies (and Buddhist philosophy!) which I have placed on my website at http://www.sgml.u-net.com/philosophy.doc.

Martin Bryan