[sc34wg3] Are topic maps about knowledge representation?

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* James David Mason
|
| 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).

My main reason for not using the k-word was that it was not a
technical term. Whether topic maps are knowledge (and must always be
knowledge) I don't know, and any opinion on it will necessarily be
subjective, precisely because the term is not technical.

| 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). 

That makes a certain sort of twisted sense, and since most people seem
happy with it I bow to the majority.

I started from Nikita's version, but made a tiny change:

* Nikita Ogievetsky
|
| Topic maps are abstract structures which encode author's knowledge

I took out "author," since there need not be a human author anywhere
in the process.

| 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.

This I kept as it was.

* James David Mason
|
| So if we can make this thing do a little marketing for us without
| calling down the wrath of Sowa, let's do it.

That remains to be seen. :)

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >