parid0386 | Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:16:43 
The subject matter of the section doesn't seem to
match the heading, which reinforces for me the notion that "humans are the
ultimate arbiters of subject identity." But the text talks about the
responsbiolities of topic map "creators" which is a different kettle of
fish.
—shunting@etopicality.com
parid0386 | Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:16:43 
I'm very uncomfortable with the word "creator", first because of its
vaguely religious aura, second because see no reason why the entity of
origin for a topic map has to be human, and, in the case where it isn't,
where I am to look to discover "intent." Isn't this paragraph really
speaking to what the nature of the authority behind any given topic map
must be? And won't these authorities get such autority as they possess
pragmatically? It seems to me that "must accept responsbility" boils down
to following the 10 point checklist, which does or should include
signing up for the SLUO, but I don't see what more can or need
be done that that.
—shunting@etopicality.com
parid0386 | Sat, 01 Mar 2003 16:30:41
The merging rules defined by TM Applications are intended be exploited by creators of topic maps, so that the topic maps they create can incorporate other topic maps by reference, and so that when such references are resolved, the resulting merged topic map graph will be identical to the one that the creator intended.
(strike)
Argumentative, does not express something we can constrain.
—pdurusau@emory.edu