[geolang-comment] Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Baltimore minutes

[Mary Nishikawa <nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>]

Bernard,

Thanks. I really appreciate your comments since I wasn't at the meeting. I 
really need to use the GeoLang stuff ASAP and maybe I am a little bit in a 
hurry to settle this :)


At 13:33 2002/12/23 +0100, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>Mary
>
>Thanks for your input. Detailed comments below.
>
>*Steve
> > >Instead of "http://psi.oasis-open.org/iso639/#NOR"; we proposed
> > >going with "http://psi.oasis-open.org/iso/639/#NOR";.
>
>*Mary
> > If you take a look at the Geolang minutes from Montreal it was decided to
> > use the the numeric codes of the ISO standards.   These minutes need to be
> > voted on. What is proposed here seems to contradict that decision. It would
> > be good if we did agree and go forward, but I do not know if this is for
> > the Published Subjects Committee discussion.
>
>Exact. The process that we had in PubSubj was to look at GeoLang proposal 
>vs what PubSubj
>general recommendations or requirements are so far and will be. What was 
>agreed on was
>that URLs should carry some semantics to human users, and in that spirit, 
>the alpha code
>was considered better than the numeric one. OTOH I remember that in 
>Montréal, Lars Marius
>among others stressed the fact that too much semantics in URLs was not 
>that a good idea,
>leading to the opposite conclusion. This is indeed something to fix in 
>terms of process.
>
>It seems to me that GeoLang (idem XMLvoc) has to push proposals, then 
>PubSubj has to
>review them to see if they fit the general requirements and 
>recommendations, consider the
>input to make those R&R progress, then push its conclusions, comments and 
>recommendations
>to GeoLang to consider. And at some point GeoLang has to comply, since 
>compliance is in
>its charter.

Sounds like a good process. It would be good to have this written down 
somewhere. Was this discussed in Baltimore and if so, it would be good to 
get into the minutes.


> > Following what Lars Marius already proposed, the human readable file was
> > the index file in directory iso639 and it will be changed to  639?
> > Going with the numeric codes,  the psi for Norway would be this:
> > http://psi.oasis-open.org/iso/639/#578
>
>I would like to hear from Lars Marius here, with his GeoLang hat :))

I am looking forward to an answer too :))
I need to work with this set and I need to begin working on the UN regions.


> > I think that it would be a good idea to register
> > http://purl.org/oasis   Do we need to get some approval from OASIS to 
> do this?
>
>What is the purpose of it if vs http://psi.oasis-open.org ?

I think that having it as an alternative give others the option to use it. 
I think that the library community would be interested. I know that I am a 
minority of "1" on this one :)


> >   We can use the new dublin core medata registry for the controlled
> > vocabulary for terms such as publisher, source, etc.   For example, they
> > have already placed "PSIs" in their  Metadata registry
> > http://dublincore.org/dcregistry/index.html
> >
> > Search for "publisher" display  "controlled vocabulary terms" in their
> > metadata registry and you will get
> > http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/publisher
> >
> > with its description.
>
>Use of purl is IMO an orthogonal issue that we should discuss separately.

What I mention here is not about PURL. It is about using the "subjects" 
that seem to have already been "published" by DC. I think that we should 
all take a look at their registry. We can use some of their "published 
subjects," even if they do not call them that, but it looks the same to me.

This is such a huge task, publishing subjects. It looks as if DC is the 
first body to do a registry like this.


>*Steve
> > >  believe we also considered using "http://psi.oasis-open.org/iso/639/";
> > >as the PSI for the PSI set itself (as per ex2).
> >
> > I am not so sure why we would need a psi for the psi set itself.
>
>Many use cases of that! For example express that a PSI belongs to that PSI 
>set, or
>constrain an application to use identifiers belonging to some PSI set for 
>a given class of
>topics (ex: control that PSI used for languages belong to the set 
>published by GeoLang
>...) So not only do we need it, but we need a general way to express it, 
>and using the
>directory URL is the most natural way it seems.


Sorry, Bernard, I must be thick on this one. Why would applications need 
this? This would be needed by the constraint language?  Looks like more 
machinery than we would need.

Maybe when I see the examples, it will become clearer :)

> > >That would of course
> > >conflict with its possible use for ISO 639 (the standard, as opposed
> > >to the PSI set). Perhaps the standard should have the PSI
> > >"http://psi.oasis-open.org/iso/#639/";? That way all PSIs for ISO
> > >standards that we translate will be in the same resource. Nice and
> > >tidy.
> >
> > I would rather the standard use http://psi.oasis-open.org/iso/639/
>
>IMO the solution proposed by Steve http://psi.oasis-open.org/iso/#639 is 
>cleaner. The more
>I think about it, the more we should recommend that a directory URL should 
>be, by default,
>the PSI for the set of PSIs published in the directory. Any other 
>interpretation
>
> > >I do not recall discussing the PSI "http://psi.oasis-open.org/"; and
> > >see no need for it myself, at least not yet, so ex1 should go away.
> >
> > Question: Do we need a psi for oasis, or is the domain enough?
> > We could register this, as I mentioned above.
> > http://purl.org/oasis
>
>There again, http://psi.oasis-open.org/ would not fit to be a PSI for 
>oasis, but for the
>set of PSIs published in that namespace.

So we need a PSI for OASIS it seems. What that would be, I think we need to 
discuss.


> > I think that If we discuss this at the Published Subjects TC meeting we
> > should have a joint meeting then with the Geolang members and announce this
> > to them too.
>
>As a matter of fact, the question of relevancy of separate TCs, and field 
>of expertise of
>each, has been evoked in Baltimore meeting.
>As I view it, back and forth exchanges from general recommendations to 
>specific
>applications is a way to go. It's a  recursive process as explained above, 
>but I don't
>think it has been working that bad so far.

It was just a little unclear to me what was discussed at GeoLang versus the 
Published subjects TC at Baltimore.  It would be good to see the GeoLang 
Minutes soon and compare it with these minutes, so I will be patient :)

Thanks Bernard, and have a nice Christmas and Happy New Year (Christmas Eve 
and Christmas are not national holidays in Japan, so I bother you with my 
ruminations :))

Cheers,
Mary