RE: The Map/Territory Conundrum in Topic Maps vs. RDF

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Noting only that some maps are drawn over 
existing terrain, others, say a landscaping 
map, are specific instructions for shaping 
the terrain.  Some DTD/Schemas are written 
to describe content (tag sprinkling) while 
others are used to direct a person/machine 
to create content.   The map/territory 
conundrum is not the same in both processes. 
Walter, your point of view seems to be 
heavily influenced by the role of interpretation 
of a receiving node.  There is no true 
universe AFAIK.  There are messages and 
contexts of communication, plus contracts 
that one might assert and others assent 
to over some communication context.  Because 
markup is simply a system, and any system 
by definition has rules, one consents to 
rules or doesn't.

The creeping WebXML As Universal bugs me. 
It seems inimical to progress.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: W. E. Perry [mailto:wperry@fiduciary.com]

That map is certainly not the only possible map, gloss, structure or other
opinion which might be constructed upon the non-markup content of that
instance, and in fact may not be the only one which could be elaborated
from that particular combination of markup and other content. But unlike,
perhaps, the 'real universe' or (pace Pontius Pilate) the 'truth', marked
up documents do consist of two types of content, one of which, the markup,
is in some sense a commentary upon, a suggested structure for, or a
possible map to some portion of the rest.