[topicmapmail] Subject Identifiers metadata

[Murray Altheim]

Bernard Vatant wrote:
 > Kal, Tom, Murray, and al
 >
 > Unfortunately I have not the bandwidth to dive deeply into this cheerful debate, I just
 > quickly browsed through the thread trying to figure what it is about. Well, I guess the
 > title of the thread is quite good and says it all, it's about Subject Identifiers
 > *Metadata*.
[...]
 > Another thing, more philosophical. I see in the debate here and there coming back
 > expressions like "real world" and "exist", sometimes both in the same sentence. Hmmm ... I
 > remember my main contribution (maybe the only significant one) to XTM specification was to
 > insist to have those words striken out. Subjects are subjects of conversation. Existence
 > of the conversation is hard to deny. As for the existence of subjects outside of
 > conversation, well, I'm personally completely agnostic ... but, hush, there are some
 > platonicians around :))

Bernard,

I was daft enough to leave off a smiley on my last message. I didn't
actually mean it seriously, and thought the thread had done along far
enough that perhaps it was time for Complete Comprehension. My apologies
to those confused by what was a deliberately dada message.

So I suppose I agree with you. :-)

Murray

I had written:
 >
 > Tom,
 >
 > I've been watching you and Kal go around on this one for awhile
 > now, and neither of you seem to be getting any closer to an
 > understanding. Not having been present during the conversations
 > I believe Kal is alluding to, you seem to be having trouble
 > catching that what he's talking about has nothing to do with
 > computers or computer systems, that the concept of "the thing
 > we hang topics off of" (what Steve Newcomb and Eliot Kimber at
 > one time were calling a "binding point") *doesn't* exist in the
 > same way that a mathematical point doesn't exist (except as a
 > point), which is the reason that there's no way to reify it. In
 > the conceptual model for topic maps we didn't include the concept
 > of binding point, but it assuredly both exists and doesn't exist,
 > just as the thing that can't be reified because its only purpose
 > is to *be* a binding point for topic characteristics that exist
 > but don't exist, except in a vacuum. This is in essense the "topic
 > identity" and should not be reified because it does not exist. If
 > it existed we could put a cherry on top of it and eat it.
 >
 > I hope this clears everything up.
 >
 > Murray
 >
 > ......................................................................
 > Murray Altheim                    http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
 > Knowledge Media Institute
 > The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .
 >
 >    The Resume of George W. Bush
 >    http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > topicmapmail mailing list
 > topicmapmail@infoloom.com
 > http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
 >

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                    http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

   The Resume of George W. Bush
   http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html