parid2901 | Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:28:22 
So the RM has to ensure that merging does not split existing subjects, but
it has to allow merging of subjects considered previously as distinct, and
admit that in many cases, the same subject will be represented by
different nodes, because the identity of subject for those nodes has not
yet been discovered ... In that spirit, SLUO should be considered only as
a pragmatic guideline, and not an absolute Requirement.
—bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
parid2901 | Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:01:12
Many of the key advantages of the Topic Maps paradigm derive from the achievement of its primary objective, the "Subject Location Uniqueness Objective", which is to make everything known about every subject in a topic space accessible from a single location within that space. The achievement of the Subject Location Uniqueness Objective means that the efficiency with which users can find information is maximized, not only because the subject's single location, once found, acts as a comprehensive catalog of the things that are known about it, but also because the subject's location can be found in terms of any of its relationships to other subjects.
The key advantages of the Topic Map paradigm include: 1) All the information about a subject can be discovered from a single location, 2) A subject can be found on the basis of its relationship to other subjects, 3) Topic maps can be merged without loss of information, thereby automatically increasing the information available on any given subject. These advantages flow from the primary objection of the Topic Maps paradigm, that is to make all the information known about a subject accessible from a single location. That objective is known as the "Subject Location Uniqueness Objective" or "SLUO."
Note that I have listed the "key advantages" rather than just
jumping into saying how we get there with topic maps. Rather than extol
the SLUO, I think we need to focus in the introduction on why topic maps
are important, to induce the reader to continue onwards.
I think we need to give serious consideration to changing the name of
the "SLUO." One suggestion that comes to mind is the "Unique Subject
Location Objective" or "USLO." I don't know that it is really necessary
to include the "location" language in the objective and would be just as
pleased with "Unique Subject Objective" or "USO." That a subject has a
unique location in the topic map is a result of the merging rules, and
is the key to the paradigm but I don't know that the current name is a
real marketing winner.
—pdurusau@emory.edu
parid2901 | Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:23:10 
> I don't know that it is really necessary
> to include the "location" language in the objective and would be just as
> pleased with "Unique Subject Objective" or "USO."
why use Subject in place of Topic. Surely its a Unique Topic Objective
(UTO) or a Unique Topic Location Objective (UTLO)
—mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com