[topicmapmail] Thoughts about (the evolution of) topic maps

[Murray Altheim]

Quoting Tobias Redmann <tobias at meshed.de>:
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> until now, I thought a topic map is a abstract model (for knowledge
> structures for example), but the standard says:
>
> "... a standardized notation for interchangeably representing information
> about the structure of information resources used to define topics, and the
> relationships between topics. A set of one or more documents that employes
> the notation defined by this International Standard is called topic map."
> (ISO 13250:2002)
[...]
> It is very confusing to define, what a topic map is. I would say:
>
> A topic map is a abstract model that describes knowledge structures.
> This model may be represented in many ways (xtm, HyTM, files db etc).

Tobias,

While I believe Lars Marius did a fine job in answering this message
from back in mid-December, I am just going through my mail folders
(as I'm switching ISPs) and noticed this message.

It struck me that *really* your question has almost nothing to do
with Topic Maps and is a classic Knowledge Representation question,
the kind of thing I'd write as a quiz question for my students,
the kind of thing John Sowa chews on for breakfast. I suppose.

If one substitutes any other word for the phrase "Topic Maps" we
see the same dilemma:  namely, that the name for something (or
some thing) is only one of a variety of names for what might be
called the "abstract model" or "abstract concept" (the subject,
which itself may include sub-subjects, i.e., other subjects
related by various predicates), and that there are then often
what might be called schemas, models, or other forms of pattern
or design at a level (or levels) below the most abstract, and
below all that "concrete" implementations or occurrences of the
subject.

So, with "car", we have the abstract concept of car, we have
various definitions of car (like how many wheels, and does it
needs a steering wheel or a human driver?, etc.), we have
specific designs/models of car, then we have actual implemen-
tations of those designs( with even those names, like "Mustang",
getting reused and changed over time -- what *is* a Mustang?
to somewhat paraphrase Bill Clinton). And of course, this goes
on and on, hybrids, alterations, mutations, etc.

Turtles all the way down...

With Topic Maps we have a very similar situation, with an
amorphous high-level concept of "Topic Maps" (that not everyone
-- in this case defining "everyone" as those within an implicit
"community" -- necessarily agrees on, and has also changed over
time), then we have high-level abstract designs, less-abstract
(but still abstract) formal specifications for meta-languages
(such as ISO 13250:1999), concrete syntax specifications (any
and all early, unofficial XTM prototypes, the various drafts
and final standards for Topic Maps, XTM 1.0 & 2.0, then all the
related specifications for LTM, AsTMa, etc.), then we have
actual Topic Map documents.  And *all* can properly called
"Topic Maps", depending on the context (or the question,
which implies a context), e.g., is AsTMa a Topic Map? Well,
yes. One can go on to describe in greater detail exactly what
it is, but it's somewhere under that big umbrella of things
called "Topic Map", as much as is ISO 13250. Again, context.

As to what Topic Maps will be in the future, we're all part
of that.

Not sure if that's helpful, but my 2c... I must be in one of
those moods.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray06 at altheim.com>                              ===  = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/                                     = =  ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk               = =  = =

        In the evening
        The rice leaves in the garden
        Rustle in the autumn wind
        That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu