TMDM-NG – Reification

Reification in the TMDM means using a topic to “reify” a name, occurrence, association, etc. Whatever a subject is represented by a name, occurrence or association, after “reification” it is also also represented by a topic.

For the TMDM-NG, let’s drop reification and make names, occurrences, associations, etc., first class citizens in a topic map.

Making names, occurrences, associations first class citizens would mean we could add properties to them without the overhead of creating topics to represent subjects that already have representatives in a topic map.

Do need to work on occurrence being overloaded to mean both in the bibliographic sense as well as a property but that can wait for a future post.

5 Responses to “TMDM-NG – Reification”

  1. Robert Barta says:


    You have just proposed TMRM to replace TMDM!

    In fact, proxies are ALWAYS statements and are ‘reified’ automatically: You can directly “attach properties” to proxies by using that proxy in a new one.

    Yes, TMRM is brilliant, but with that editor group it is not surprising….

  2. Patrick Durusau says:


    I will withhold comment on the editorial group…. 😉

    No, this isn’t replacing the TMDM with the TMRM.

    The TMDM defines merging conditions and structures subject to those conditions. Unlike the TMRM, which defines neither one.

    Legends/data models are an absolute necessity, both general as well as more specific ones for particular domains.

    Or to put it differently, the TMRM provides a basis for talking about models and models for bridging between models. A rhetoric if you will, instead of a model.

    My suggestion was to continue with the structures of the TMDM but to also modify them in light of the experience of the past ten years.

  3. Personally, I find it difficult to think of anything we need less than a new TMDM version. Rejiggering TMDM means rejiggering XTM 2.1, CTM, and TMCL… and we should really focus on finishing TMQL…

    Of course, exploratory work on other models is perfectly fine, but I don’t think this is something ISO should do right now.

  4. Patrick Durusau says:


    Well, I am posting here and not as a NP in ISO!

    I suspect this is one of the better uses for blogs.

    I don’t think ISO does “exploratory” very well.

    I do think we need to become more dynamic in terms of evolution of standards in SC 34.

    I still regret the loss of XML and related standards because of the failure of SC 34 based standards to evolve.

  5. I agree that ISO is not the right place for exploratory work, and I agree that doing it here is harmless. Well, not just harmless, it might in fact be useful.

    I’ve been telling people for years that they don’t have to do their technical work inside of ISO, that it’s possible to do it outside, and it seems finally to start to happen now. I’m thinking of things like JTM and SDshare.