[topicmapmail] Subject Maps

[Bob Parks]

Steven,
I completely agree with your analysis of the semantics of the terms 
"topic" and "subject".   And I also agree that the title "subject 
map" isn't exactly an improvement, even though it is closer to the 
intent of the paradigm.  But there is a clear alternative.
	* You continue noting that "A 'subject' is an idea".
	* Synonyms of "idea" include "concept", "notion" and "construct".
	* The term "concept map" would seem to be a much more 
suitable candidate. It has been widely used in many fields, and is 
entirely compatible with the "topic map" approach. It focuses 
attention on the contast between a concept and a percept, as well as 
the contrast between a concept and the term that designates it.

So I propose that the term "concept map" be adopted, and we refer to 
a "concept map of topics" as well as the "terms used to designate 
subjects".

Bob Parks

>Two propositions:
>
>(1) When we draw a map of Texas, we may put dots on the map to
>     indicate the locations of cities.  One dot represents the location
>     of Dallas, while another dot represents the location of Houston,
>     etc.  We might call such a map a "map of Texas cities", or even "a
>     city map".  We would never call such a map a "dot map", even
>     though it consists of dots.
>
>(2) In the topic maps paradigm, we say that topics represent subjects.
>
>The conclusion we should draw from the above two propositions is that
>"Topic Maps" is a misleading name for the topic maps paradigm.  It
>confuses the map with the territory being mapped.  If we honor the
>usual definitions:
>
>   * A "topic" is data that represents a subject.  (We say this
>     regardless of whether the topic exists as a node in a topic map
>     graph, or as an element contained in a <topicMap> element.)
>
>   * A "subject" is an idea.  Only human beings can have ideas;
>     computers, in general, don't have them (at least not yet, and
>     maybe not ever).
>
>...then, we should be calling these things "Subject Maps".  Calling
>them "Topic Maps" is akin to calling a city map of Texas a "dot map of
>Texas".
>
>However, I do not propose changing the name of the paradigm.  In many
>other ways, the name "topic maps" is just perfect.  I do think it's
>important to understand how the name "Topic Maps" can cause confusion,
>though, and to be able to help people conquer such confusion by
>explaining that they're right to be confused -- the name really is
>confusing in this one sense.
>
>-Steve
>
>--
>Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
>srn@coolheads.com
>
>voice: +1 972 359 8160
>fax:   +1 972 359 0270
>
>405 Flagler Court
>Allen, Texas 75013-2821 USA
>_______________________________________________
>topicmapmail mailing list
>topicmapmail@infoloom.com
>http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail

-- 

* Robert Parks - mailto:bobp@clarityconnect.com - Wordsmyth 
Collaboratory - (607) 257-7895
* The best dictionary and integrated thesaurus on the web
can be bookmarked at http://www.wordsmyth.net
* "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
* "Philosophers have only interpreted the world. The point, however, 
is to change it."