[sc34wg3] What do we mean by reification?

[Patrick Durusau]

Lars,

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>* Patrick Durusau
>|
>| The reason for my question is that I am assuming to have a topic
>| means that the subject is being represented in the topic map? 
>
>You put your finger on it here: topics represent subjects. That's what
>they are for. In other words, the relationship between a topic and its
>subject is one of representation.
>
>In certain cases, however, what the topic represents is part of the
>topic map, and in those cases the relationship is the more specialized
>relationship of reification. 
>
><URL: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#topic >
><URL: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#reification >
>
>Does this help?
>  
>
Some. ;-)

After having read the SAM sections from your URLs, I am still puzzled by 
the limitation of "reification" to "part of the topic map." The SAM says:

3.4.4 Reification (in part)
***

In many cases it is desirable to be able to attach additional 
information to topic map constructs such as topic names or associations. 
One may want to give an association occurrences, or to give an 
occurrence a name. The basic topic map model does not allow this, but 
through reification this can be done by creating a topic that reifies 
the topic map construct. The necessary information can then be attached 
to the reifying topic, and the reification relationship is present in 
structured form, and can reliably be detected by software.

***

So I have a subject, the topic map construct and I have a topic. What I 
am missing is what is being gained by saying that is reification versuse 
the more usual case of subjects and topics being a relationship (in SAM 
terms)? Or perhaps better, what is lost by saying both are reification?

About to skip out for errands, will check for replies in a bit.

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps