[sc34wg3] Comments on Tau model

[Robert Barta]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:12:43AM +0200, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> >This may work when creating shoes, mobiles, patios, application
> >software (ha!) and other commodities in a market. I doubt this is a
> >viable way to create (a) an infrastructure or (b) a new information
> >model like TMs want to become.
> 
> Ah! That's what you understand Topic Maps (as a paradigm, not the docs) 
> 'are'. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you mean by
> 
> - infrastructure
> 
> - information model
> 
> Can you explain or define the terms?

Better not, because for these definitions I would need other terms,
and for these as well. I do not fancy much to be hunted over "the
plains of meaningless words".

> The reason I ask is because I believe that within the TM community,
> there are several very different understandings what TMs 'are' and
> thus different people approach the question of 'what is the
> underlying nature of TMs?' very differently. Unfortunately, ISO13250
> does not really provide a compelling answer.

I see it similar. That, and EXACTLY that should be the motivation to
formalize TMs properly. Then everyone can EXACTLY voice what he think
is good or bad about a particular formalization. No more second-guessing
what "reification", "representation", "rumstification", etc. could mean.
(I found Murray's and Betrand's broader insights VERY interesting, though.)

To paraphrase a fellow countryman:

  "Whereof one cannot write a Perl program,
   thereof one must be silent."

:-))

\rho