[sc34wg3] Reification or Representation?

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Robert Barta
| 
| I think the confusion is very understandable. Just as an idea, maybe
| we could be explicit and say
| 
|   "We have two universes: the real (cough) out there and the map."
| 
|   "If we create a topic in a map which should capture the essence of
|    a thing-out-there, then we call this 'direct reification'".
| 
|   "If we need to reify an association-out-there, then we create a
|    topic which refers to the association inside the map. This is
|    called 'indirect reification'".
| 
| Just a thought.

This is pretty much what TMDM already does, except that you now
propose to use different terms. (Just making sure it's clear what the
proposal is.)

I guess you are saying two things here:

 a) you prefer "reification" over "representation" for the
    topic-subject relationship, and

 b) we can use the same term for the two different things that TMDM
    calls "representation" and "reification", but qualify it, so that
    the one is called "direct X" and the other "indirect X".

Your b) makes a lot of sense to me. Your a) I will return to when I
reply to Murray and Steve Newcomb.

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