[Sigia-l] Question about the use of the term 'ontology'

[Alexander Johannesen]

<ruth at ruthkaufman.com> wrote:
> I was under the impression that topics are reified subjects [...] so how can
> they be nested within a taxonomy of subject-based classifications?
> In other words, I don't see a topic as a type of subject, but as something that 
> a subject may become.

Apart from what others have said about terminology problems with
'subject' within the Topic Maps world, there is also what I've seen
from the start of this thread; that Topic Maps somehow have to fit
into some taxonomy of ontological meaning. :) Eh, what I mean to say
is this;

A Topic Map can be used to describe any taxonomy, ontology,
classification system, thesaurii, a graph, a map, strict or flexible
trees, or pretty much any other type of structure. It is a data model
that can define pretty much any structure you throw at it. Here at
work I'm creating Topic Maps based thesaurii, subject heading
taxonomies and faceted taxonomies (plus a few other things which I
have no idea what to call :) and mixing them up and spitting out other
means of either applications or Topic Maps. It's just a data model and
a great tool and I find it a bit misleading to say that they fit into
an ontology category. It is more the other way around.

.2AU$

Alex
-- 
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
                                                         - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________