In the first installment of this micro series I tried to make the point that different content paradigms are here for a reason and that the very fact of life should be accepted, not ignored.
Each paradigm organizes content in its own way, either using a set of tables, a hierarchy of object classes, a tree-like structure, graphs (semantic networks), or just as natural language text.
What is also worth noting is that the different paradigms can deal with different levels of irregularity. That is \
(This is a tangential, marginally interesting write-up of a more holistic view of content, i.e. the material most of us are dealing with here. The Topic Map aspect will hopefully become clearer in a later instalment.)
Every modern enterprise maintains its core data in some database, most commonly a relational one. In the world of database designers, all relevant enterprise information should be maintained in such structured form. This is then also the main objective of conventional