[Z3lab] concepts for the concept map

[Martijn Faassen]

Hey,

Eric Barroca wrote:

> On May 18, 2005, at 6:43 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
[whether all content object are really document objects, as Eric is 
proposing]
 > For me those 4 kind of content are all documents. Different document
 > types but all documents :-)

Eric, are you sure you want to get into a debate with me about *naming* 
things? :)

Go ask any man in the street whether an image is a document. They'll 
likely say, no, it's a picture, not a document. Go ask a movie maker 
whether their movie is a document. Go ask a musician whether the sound 
track they produced is a document. Go ask an interactive flash applet 
designer and ask whether that is a document.

You can twist the semantics of the word "Document" to include all kinds 
of content objects, but I believe it only creates confusion to do so. 
And even if you can convince all of them that they are producing 
documents, how do you then talk about what *I* consider to be documents, 
i.e. pieces of text I can read, with some images here and there for 
illustration. There is no word left...

Anyway, media such an images can be *part* of a document and not be a 
primary document itself. This probably also ties into the whole 
discussion on composite documents -- is part of a document a document 
itself? I want to avoid this whole discussion by simply calling this 
'content', and saying it's a Content Repository. This is, I think, a 
common terminology anyway -- JSR 170 for instance calls it 'Content 
Repository'.

Besides that point, even if you want to call all these things documents, 
I'd still want these subcategories in the concept map, as they have 
quite different requirements. Think of operations for images like 
thumbnailing, resizing, cropping, special ways to search for images in a 
gallery as opposed to a text search, etc. This requires quite different 
approaches than handling text.

Regards,

Martijn