When you are considering whether a map is a territory, consider the ways in which maps are treated like territories.
Maps are defended like territories. Suggest to one upper ontology that it should consider being more like another upper ontology if you want to see that in real life.
Maps are seen as destinations/territories. Witness the “convert to the latest ….. data model” efforts. A data model is nothing but a map. Advocates of a data map/model will not rest until all data bows to their map/model. (Rest easy, it never happens.)
Maps are seen as destinations/territories (2). The constructs of a map can be seen as subjects in their own right (in addition to its contents). Those subjects are implicitly recognized in conversion. (Topic maps enable those subjects to be made explicit.)
Claim made by particular destinations/territories that: Existence of different designations/territories impede interchange, communication, and create unnecessary expense.
What other characteristics would you ascribe to territories that can also be said about maps?
(Your claim doesn’t need universal acclimation, but you should have a good argument for it.)
*****
I reformed “covert” to “convert,” based on comment from Kirk. Although, from what I read in the papers, “covert” might have been accurate as well! 😉
Thanks for the catch Kirk!
s/covert/convert/
😉
Comment by Kirk Lowery — August 15, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
Well, at least you can take comfort in knowing that *someone* is carefully reading your posts! 😀
Comment by Kirk Lowery — August 15, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
Kirk,
I appreciate all of my readers, especially those who catch problems with posts. Not only are they reading, they are reading attentively.
Patrick
Comment by Patrick Durusau — August 15, 2010 @ 6:55 pm