[topicmapmail] Topic Maps construct vs. topic map construct

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Lars Heuer
>
> The question is, if "topic map construct" is the right term or if
> "Topic Maps construct" wouldn't be 'more' correct.

I think that:

  (1) "Topic Maps construct" is a lot more awkward than
      "topic map construct".

  (2) The technology is called "Topic Maps", and therefore "Topic
      Maps construct" seems kind of logical.

  (3) A construct in a topic map, however, could also be called
      "topic map construct".

Thoughts on this?

> Some think, that "Topic Maps construct" would fit better since this
> term refers to the 'high level' components such as "topic",
> "association" etc. and not to a particular instance of these
> components. [...]
>
> Maybe "topic map construct" exists, too, if someone refers to a
> particular topic, association etc. within a particular topic map but I
> am not sure if that term is valuable / makes sense.

The term as defined refers to the latter. I don't think this is a very  
interesting distinction, though. We generally (throughout TMDM) don't  
have different terms for "a topic", and "topics in general". We just  
call it "topic" and are done with it. So we should make do with one  
term, I think.

--Lars M.