Re: Newcomb number news
Patrick Durusau <patrick-Q/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xtm.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Andrew, I am sure this is more of a promotional/community building exercise than a canonical history of topic maps. Your question about "indirect introduction" is a good one. It illustrates that every modeling choice we make is just that, a choice we made. Always subject to refinement or fitting the data into the positions already present. Neither refinement nor fitting the data in is correct or incorrect. Simply another choice we make. Topic maps are about recording our choices and hopefully, if we are very careful, making them more interchangeable, not more correct. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:29 +0000, Andrew S. Townley wrote: > Hi Robert, > > 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. 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. ;) > > 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) > > Cheers, > > ast > -- > Andrew S. Townley <[email protected]> > http://atownley.org > _______________________________________________ > topicmapmail mailing list > topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected] > http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail