[sc34wg3] SAM-issue psi-generics (was: SAM-issue term-scope-def)

[Nikita Ogievetsky]

Nikita:
> | What I am saying is that the fact that an author decided to make a
> | topic proxy for a subject can be lost if "marc : topic" is replaced
> | with simply "marc".

Lars:
> I don't understand what you mean at all. XTM 1.0 says that if you
> don't have an explicit class, you are by default an instance of the
> PSI #topic.

You do not have to create a topic in order to talk about something.

Nikita:
> | So topic here is similar to DAML "thing".

Lars:
> Does DAML have that term?

Yes, look here, for example:
[http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil#Thing]

<Class rdf:ID="Thing">
  <rdfs:label>Thing</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:comment>
    The most general (object) class in DAML.
    This is equal to the union of any class and its complement.
  </rdfs:comment>
  <unionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
    <rdfs:Class rdf:about="#Nothing"/>
    <rdfs:Class>
      <complementOf rdf:resource="#Nothing"/>
    </rdfs:Class>
  </unionOf>
</Class>


Nikita:
> | So, I am a subject? Hmmm...
> | I think that a subject is a mental proxy for an individual.
> | And a topic is a computer proxy for a subject.
> | So I am neither a subject nor a topic.
> | However my subject is an instance of a subject
> | and my topic is an instance of a topic.

Lars:
> I think this is a philosophical point of view that might have some
> validity, but it doesn't fit very well with how topic maps have been
> defined up to this point. So far topic maps have said topics represent
> subjects, and subjects are real-world things.

I must have missed it. Did we put this in XTM standard?
Where is the equivalence between subjects and real-world things is stated?

Nikita:
> I don't think there's much to be gained from quarreling with that.

Agree

--Nikita.