[sc34wg3] Are topic maps about knowledge representation?

[Mason, James David (MXM)]

I like Nikita's modification. I've done a number of things with TMs that
I've alleged to be knowledge representation (though I'm not going to defind
myself if John Sowa tells me they aren't). 

I recognize that standards are about more than mathematical purity of
design: It's a rare standard that doesn't do a bit of marketing in its front
matter (and in the case of 8879 in a lot of other places). So if we can make
this thing do a little marketing for us without calling down the wrath of
Sowa, let's do it.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Nikita Ogievetsky [SMTP:nogievet@cogx.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:05 AM
> To:	sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> Subject:	Re: [sc34wg3] Are topic maps about knowledge representation?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3