[sc34wg3] Re: SAM-issue term-scope-def

[Sam Hunting]

> Well, I tend to agree with Lars Marius that is mainly historical,
> because people who built RDF come basically from AI and logic
> community, so they care much more about it. But Topic Maps will need
> logic and inference at a point. That's what TMCL and TMQL are about,
> and we need that badly. If we say that TM have nothing to do with
> logic and inference, we shoot ourselves in the feet, and will never be
> heard from the above-quoted community. Any knowledge representation
> sytem needs some logical foundation at some point (hmm ... that sounds
> like John Sowa, I should stop here)

I would say that we should stick to the roadmap. TMCL and TMQL are yet to
come. 

As for Sowa, yes, his book is great, but he also believes that God made
the world on the basis of FOL. 

> > But there is certainly some set of axioms that we use to make our
> judgments.

Yes, which change in historical time. Euclid -- or Reimann? Einstein chose
Reiman. Topic maps are about *subjects* -- anything you can talk
about. The various logics of choice ("foundations") are a layer about
that.

> Hear, hear. We need a topic map Euclides.
> 
> > This set of axioms could be called "Processing Model".
> 
> What has it to do with processing? Let's call things by their name.
> This is a Formal Model
> 
> > Interestingly enough it sounds that neither RM, nor SAM pretend to
> cover it.
> 
> SAM does not, it's clear. I thought that was the purpose of Reference
> Model, but maybe I was misled.

Formal model for what? 

> > So may be there is a place for an independent "PM" model that should
> > answer questions like "what does <two lines are parallel> mean".
> 
> Yes, if "meaning" means
> -- Formal definition of primitive objects
> -- Formal definition of relationships between those objects
> -- Formal definition of rules for those relationships
> 
> ... what formal logic people call "semantics", I wonder why, because
> formal definitions are useful just because there can't ever be any
> agreement on meaning :)

This is the plain historical truth. There can be agreements on meaning
(contracts), and there can even be agreements on the meanning of meaning
(standards) -- but the quest for one such definition is naother variant of
the search for the one DTD. So let's stick with with roadmap. 

That said, the RM does provide definitions of primitive objects,
definitions of relationships between the objects, and definitions for
rules relate those objects.
 
> > TMPM4 was about it, but RM jumped on a lower level (or I am missing
> > something).

In what sense was TMPM4 a lower or higher level than the RM? I see RM =
RMPM4 - SAM assertions - demander rules.

> What do you mean a "lower level"? It figures nobody is much eager to
> support RM any more ... Are Steve and Michel still around?

You should not confuse silence with lack of support. 

Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm)

Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools:  www.goose-works.org

XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------