RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Re: published subject assertions

Title: RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Re: published subject assertions

> (from Bernard Vatant)

> For a botanist, an assertion like:

> 

> "Fagales is a subclass of Dicotyledones"

This is an association. I personally do not know what Fagales is, nor Dicotyledones. So this assertion does not mean anything to me. I would prefer some descriptive text, that may contain hyperlinks to Dicotyledones and whatsoever, so that I could start to understand. It would be easy to arrange this using the "subject" topic characteristic.

The botanist needs not to follow the hyperlinks, as he will understand the lingo.

> whatever it "means"... belongs to the definition of Fagales, 

> and has to be made distinct

> of any formal characteristic of a topic representing the 

> class "Fagales" in a topic map.

> It is a non-formal assertion inherent to the subject definition.

Why? I am afraid I really do not understand Bernard here.

> Might seem subtle, but for me it's fundamental and not 

> restarting from Adam & Eve, just

> putting distinct names on distinct things ...

Perhaps too subtle. When I said to me XTM seems to be too abstract, this looks like not being abstract enough. 

Thomas Bandholtz

CM / KM Division Manager; XML Network Moderator

Competence Center Content Management

SchlumbergerSema

http://www.schlumbergersema.com

Kaltenbornweg 3

D50679 K闤n / Cologne 

Germany

+49 221 8299 264