Consistency and Formal Model Re: [topicmapmail] Can a resourceRef be a topic

[Sam Hunting]

In the absence of a decent, i.e. topic map-enabled, mailer I've
annotated Bernard's prose like this:
          ^^^^^ [0]

[0] with notes.

[bernard]
> Peter's TM *implicit model* misinterpretation and Steve's remarks
> about it - that I second completely - show once again that we 
> definitely need a formal model that clearly forbid
                                 ^^^^[1]
> that kind of semantic inconsistencies, like using the same topic
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[2] ^^^^[3]
> reference for "topic type" and "scope", or using a topic that 
> represent an individual object as a class, and the like ...

> I will try to deliver ASAP an on-line presentation of that model,
> readable for non-too-much-mathematicians. A challenge indeed ...

[1] "A formal model is needed" does not mean "a formal model is needed
that...". *A* formal model does not mean *this* formal model. This or 
any model must be justified in terms of the topic map paradigm, not the

other way round. If it doesn't meet that criterion, another formal
model
may always be chosen.

[2] The mathematical model, being purely formal, describes a topic map
using purely mathematical constructs. Math has no notion, and can have
no notion, of anything that we would call "semantic inconsistency"
(where "semantics" includes meaning as humans understand it.)

"Frobnostification," for example, could replace "semantic
inconsistency" with no loss of formal precision -- both are a "prose
add-on"s to the formalism, and no more or less formal than the prose of
any standard or specification. 

"Frobnostification," in fact, would be more precise than "semantic
inconsistency" in that it would avoid introducing an implicit
functional specification into a formal model. 

That is, the label "inconsistent" is used to deprecate or forbid
certain results of the intersection of *this* formalism with certain
applications of the topic map paradigm. 

The reasons for such deprecation may be good, and may be bad, but
whether they are or not, they have to do with how topic maps function
in practice, which cannot be derived from the formalism.

3. "Semantic stovepipes" is my label for the danger I see in the
implicit functional specification of "frobnostification" in the
documentation for the formal model. 

The danger is that the very sort of knowledge interchange that topic
maps should be encouraging will be decreased ("islands of markup" all
over again).

Of course, "in danger, opportunity." It may be that what Bernard and
his  team of mathematicians have come up with is a way to define what a
"topic map application" is, which would be a fantastic result.

I eagerly await the readable explanation of the model (which is very
exciting, interesting work).

S.

P.S. For "frobnostification," see the jargon file:

   http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/frob.html.




=====
<!-- www.etopicality.com 
     www.goose-works.org 

"A human is a topic map's way of making another topic map."

-->

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com