[sc34wg3] Topics and Subjects clarification

[Marc de Graauw]

* Bernard
| I disagree completely with the assertion "subjects are real-world things". It
| is restrictive, misleading and metaphysically biased, in the sense that it
| supposes that real-world is divided into things *before* we speak about
| them, which is obviously wrong.
| Definition of things is always ad hoc, arbitrary, and - in best cases - agreed
| upon in a community through provisional consensus. In the worse and most
| frequent cases, disagreement triggers religious wars. And BTW those wars
| are triggered exactly because people confuse their subjects of conversation
| with real-world eternal absolute things :o)
| Main tool to agree on how to divide the world into those arbitrary "things" is
| conversation, that's why I always insisted that subjects are strictly speaking
| "subjects of conversation" - they are created, agreed upon and maintained
| through conversation.

I am not sure what this 'clarification' is Bernard. It certainly is not a
clarification of the way 'subject' is defined in 13250, XTM and SAM, because
you obviously disagree with what is said there. You speak as if there were
an objective truth, accessible for everybody, on what subjects reallly are,
and that you are clarifying the notion of 'subject' by pointing at those
truths. I do not believe there is such a universally accepted notion of what
subjects are, and frankly I cannot believe you would actually believe that.
So then apparently you are proposing to change the definition of 'subject'.
'Subject' is not what SAM says it is, it is something else, and this is such
a proposal. In that case I think you should provide an alternative
definition and call that thread 'SAM-issue term-subject-def', since it
already is an issue. If you do that, I will not support your proposal.

When I use Topic Maps I do not want to commit myself to statements such as:
- It is false that the world is divided into things *before* we speak about
them.
- Definition of things is always ad hoc, arbitrary.
- and more.
I think ISO13250 did a reasonable job in saying as little as possible about
the 'real world' and the relation between it and Topic Maps, while realizing
one cannot say nothing on the issue. I think a Topic Map standard should
bear as few philosophical implications as possible, and what you propose on
the issue does not fulfill that condition.

* Bernard
| So we have to distinguish clearly those three levels
|
| 1 : Real world, whatever that means - and we really should not care
| 2 : Subjects (of conversation)
| 3 : Topics that formally represent subjects

2 and 3 would do for me, as long as we interpret 'subject' as ISO13250 and
XTM defined it, in which case this level _is_ the real world. I do not see
the benefit of adding another level.

And please note that in an informal, natural-language way there is nothing
wrong with saying that real-world things are subjects. Look at the following
conversation:

Lars and Marc are standing in the corner of the Ontopia booth at a major XML
conference, having a beer and are deeply engaged in discussion. Bernard
enters and asks: 'Well, what is the subject?'. Lars answers: 'Nikita'.

In which case 'Nikita' clearly is a subject. With which I only want to
stress that when ISO13250/XTM define 'subject' in such a way that real world
things (amongst others) are subjects, this is not contradictory with the way
we can use the word 'subject' in everyday language. It is not the case that
'subject' is a word that is reserved for mental entities, as you and Nikita
seem to assume. So as for as I am concerned we should stick with the way
'subject' is defined in ISO13250 or XTM, either is fine. I already think SAM
says way to much about 'subject'. On which I will start another thread.

Marc