Re: Temporal validitity of subject indicators?

Patrick,

Am 08.05.2011 um 16:35 schrieb Patrick Durusau:

> Robert,
> 
> Below you say:
> 
>> The only way that i think this issue can be solved (in theory) is this: every topic map author must use his own subject identifiers since only then one can be sure that the statements he makes are at the right topic. He should only use exactly *one* subject identifier. I would call such topic maps, that hold information and use exactly one genuine subject identifier per topic, content topic maps. These are not dangerous, in the sense that they *cannot*
>>  contain misunderstandings.
>> 
> I'm not sure what you say is true even in theory. 
> 
> What happens when I write a topic map, using my own subject identifiers and only *one* subject identifier per topic and I read something after authoring the topic map that alters my understanding about one or more subjects, represented by topics, in the map?

Then you realized that it is a actually a *different* subject since "understanding" and "meaning" are very closely related. I think you should then create a new topic since it is a new subject.

It also sounds a little bit like you had no idea what you were talking about in the first place :) No, seriously, if it is a domain with well-established common understanding of the subjects amongst the communicators (e.g. soccer fans talking about soccer players), then such a situation is less likely. If you have a domain where all subjects are anyway fuzzy (e.g. philosophy), then i think it is even more important to frequently switch subject identifiers, since you can always add a glue map, while it is impossible to get the mess apart.

But generally this approach also requires the sanity of the authors in order to achieve understanding. On the other hand memory is a fragile beast and if you consider a life time, it is not unlikely that a topic map author might forget the subject of a topic. Let's hope he used the lifelines and used significant names and descriptions.

> Assume a subsequent map is substantially different from the first. The classes of subjects change for example.
> 
> Does the first map contain a "misunderstanding?"
> 
> Or just a different understanding? 

I would say that one understanding constitutes one subject. But that is just my take on it.

Best,

Robert