Re: Newcomb number news

Am 07.12.2010 um 11:29 schrieb Andrew S. Townley:

> On 7 Dec 2010, at 9:14 AM, Robert Cerny wrote:
>>
>> If you have any questions, let me know!
>
> How are you supposed to account for indirect introductions?

> For example, I don't see 'Google' on the list, because that's how I  
> discovered Topic Maps.

Google, the search engine, is just mediating ideas. It does not have  
any of its own. Only people have ideas and make statements.

> Only after that did I become acquainted with the writings of Steve  
> Pepper, Steven Newcomb and Robert Barta, but I'd be hard pressed to  
> remember at this stage which paper I read first. ;)

I suggest you take all three then. Which will give you a Newcomb  
number of 1.

> Still, it's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's really  
> intended as the hard and fast record of Topic Maps history, is it?  
> (per Steve Pepper's follow-up question)

See my reply to Steve. Plus:

It was not my idea. It was originally presented in an Open-Space- 
Session 200(8|9) by Xuân Baldauf (and Lar Marius, i think). I just  
implemented it.

Best,

Robert