[sc34wg3] Are topic maps about knowledge representation?

[Nikita Ogievetsky]

I also do not have problems with K-Word,
because I do use it in this context.
However, I would replace first K-Word
with "author's knowledge" and second K-Word
(as Kal suggested) with "encoded knowledge".
So that it becomes:

   Topic maps are abstract structures which encode author's
   knowledge about a domain and connect this encoded knowledge to
   information resources that are considered relevant to the
   domain. Topic maps are organized around topics, which are
   symbols representing subjects of discourse, associations
   representing relationships between the subjects, and
   occurrences, which connect the subjects to pertinent
   information resources.

By the way what is the meaning of "a domain" ?
Domain of what? knowledge?
"knowledge about a domain of knowledge" ... Yak...
Why not "a set of subjects"?
"knowledge about a set of subjects"

--Nikita.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Hunting" <shunting@etopicality.com>
To: <sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Are topic maps about knowledge representation?


> [patrick duruseau]
> > Personally I would relegate whatever claims one wants to make about
> > topic maps to marketing literature and similar genres but don't feel it
> > is worth the group's time to debate where such claims should be made.
>
> Since I believe that topic maps are sets of knowledge-bearing assertions,
> I don't have problems with the k-word (though Kal's objections are
> cogent).
>
> However, Patrick, I  understand how, using the standard you sketch above,
> it would be possible for *any* marketing claim to be rejected from
> inlcusion in the standard.
>
> Sam Hunting
> eTopicality, Inc.