[topicmapmail] Topic Maps construct vs. topic map construct

[Lars Heuer]

[...]
> Our question is basically, if "Topic Maps construct" shouldn't be the
> superordinate concept for "topic map", "topic", "association",
> "association role", "topic name", "occurrence", and "variant".

... and if the term "topic map construct" is wrong, will there be an
errata in the near future which corrects other things, like the wrong
PSI for the default topic name type, too?

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
http://www.semagia.com
http://www.topicmaps.de/mailinglist/ German Topic Maps mailinglist