[sc34wg3] What do we mean by reification?

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Patrick Durusau
| 
| Nice of you to ask! Don't think so but self-reports on sanity or
| clarity are suspect at best. ;-)
| 
| It was mainly a rhetorical question to make sure we were starting
| from a common point.

Not a great success, as I think you saw. We started wondering about
your sanity instead. :-)
 
* Steve Pepper
|
| If you want to say something more about, say, the relationship
| represented by an association, you have to create a topic for it.
 
* Patrick Durusau
|
| Just as you created a topic for the subject outside the topic map,
| yes?

Yes, except that in this case there are special rules you must follow,
and there are special rules for interpreting what you've done. It's a
special case of the more general case.
 
| I am not questioning whether the technique makes sense. What I am
| questioning is why the value of the <subjectIndicatorRef> being the
| ID of an <association> element differs from some other value of the
| <subjectIndicatorRef> such that it needs a different name? In other
| words, what do we gain by having a different name from the "general,
| run-of-the-mill act of creating a topic."? 

We get a name for a special technique that's required to achieve a
particular purpose. We also get names for the [reifier] and [reified]
properties in the SAM. Note that RDF also uses the term consistently
with SAM.

Personally, I don't understand how it can be controversial that we
need a term for this technique. I've found having one to be very
useful and am not at all keen to be left without one. Frankly, I find
this so obvious that it's difficult to come up with arguments for why
it's the case. Please, could other people step in and make their
opinions known?

| I think Lars' point that it be recognized by the software still
| obtains whatever the name.

True.

* Steve Pepper
|
| I believe we should adopt the SAM's usage and modify the way the
| term is used in RM. (Does the RM actually even need it?)
 
* Patrick Durusau
|
| Do you mean reification?

I think Steve means that RM should just say "represents" everywhere,
and never use "reifies".
 
| I have (yet) to hear a compelling reason why the SAM needs to
| distinguish the two cases with different names. I think that case
| has to be made first before we start talking about who should be
| suggesting names for the SAM to use in this case.

There are two issues here, Patrick, not just one:

  a) do topics and RM nodes "represent" subjects, or do they "reify"
     them?

  b) should SAM use the term "reification" for topics representing
     topic map constructs?

Are you saying that your answer to a) is "represent" and that your
answer to b) is "no, it should use 'representation'"?
 
| Note that I agree with the facts you have stated about the operation
| of what the SAM calls "reification" so that part is not in
| dispute. What I am interested in learning is what difference there
| is in that technique and regular topic creation that merits a
| different name. As far as I can see they both have subjects about
| which the topic map creator wants to make a statement.

They are. One is a special case of the other.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >