[sc34wg3] What do we mean by reification?

[Jan Algermissen]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> 
> * Steve Pepper
> |
> | This seems to be getting to the heart of the difference between the
> | SAM and the RM. If "every subject is already (pre)reified" in the
> | RM, but not in the SAM, perhaps the apparent inconsistency becomes
> | acceptable?
> 
> * Jan Algermissen
> |
> | The relationship between the RM and a Topic Map Model (SAM) is
> | different than the above sentence implies:
> |
> | The RM ensures that every subject THAT THE MODEL (SAM) DEFINES TO BE
> | A SUBJECT is already prereified. It is *ENTIRELY* up to the SAM to
> | say what the subjects are (= what 'users' of the SAM are enabled to
> | 'talk about' ).
> 
> Jan, what does this have to do with the choice of the term
> "representation", as opposed to "reification"? 

Sorry, I should have changed the subject line.

> Also, I don't see any
> contradiction between what you write and what Steve wrote.

Well, maybe I misinterpreted what Steve tried to say, possibly because
of the confusion about the different usages of the term 'reifies'.
I think I was mostly irritated by the ongoing tendency to *compare*
the SAM and the RM whereas they are entirely different in nature.

Jan
> --
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3

-- 
Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer	                  http://www.gooseworks.org