[topicmapmail] Topic Maps construct vs. topic map construct

[Lars Heuer]

Hi Lars,

[...]
>> TMDM defines "topic map" as a "set of topics and associations".
>> "topic map construct" is not logical.

> Why not?

Because a in lower case written "topic map" refers, as I understood
the TMDM definition, to a particular topic map. And "topic map
construct" would therefor refer to a construct within a particular
topic map (i.e. topic 'X' within topic map 'Y').

But the UML diagram [1] indicates that "topic map construct" is the
superordinate concept for "topic", "association" etc. The UML diagram
is not normative, but IMO the diagram in this respect right, that all
concepts / components like "topic", "association" are "constructs"
and therefor they are "Topic Maps constructs".

[...]
>>  (3) A construct in a topic map, however, could also be called
>>      "topic map construct".
[...]
>> Yes, but as you laid down, "topic map construct" seems to be
>> unnecessary since the use case is missing.

> Hmmm. To me they mean the same thing. So how can the use case be  
> missing for the one and not for the other?

I think, I was unclear. ;) *Iff* we rename the thing, which is
currently called "topic map construct" into "Topic Maps construct", I
see no reason why the TMDM should additionally define the term "topic
map construct". Hmm... . More clear? =:-O In short: My proposal is:
Rename the "topic map construct" into "Topic Maps construct". Leave
"topic map construct" undefined. That's it. ;)

[1]
<http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/images/classhierarchy.png>

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