[tm-pubsubj-comment] Comments on Use Case

[Suellen Stringer-Hye <Stringers@LIBRARY.Vanderbilt.edu>]

Hi,   

Here are some comments about Mary's excellent Use Case posted 
 at   

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/registry- 
usecase.htm  


Mary outlines the advantages and disadvantages to using the  
Dublin Core  Classification Schemes   

Advantage: These organizations have huge subject databases that  
can be  used by those who need to classify their subject. Much  
work has gone into  the Dublin Core by many, many experts. This  
would help in realizing a  standard that would be acceptable to  
knowledge communities  

I think this is very important. It would be foolhardy if not  
impossible to  attempt to duplicate these efforts.   


Disadvantage: Since all of these choices would be made available,  
it might  be difficult for the publisher of the published subject to  
know which one is  best. For example, since I am not familar with  
the LCC, and wouldn't know  if DDC is a better choice, I would  
need an expert to verify that the  classification I chose was the  
best for the subject. This would be a great  responsibility on the  
shoulders of the experts. It may be possible to have  some kind of  
self registration and validation. How can we depend on the  validity  
of the subject? Are human resources available to do the validation  
or  some validation by some online database? This would need  
careful  consideration by the users of the resources. Another  
problem would be  multiple entries (non unique subject identities).  
One person could register  an LCC for "Dublin Core" as a subject  
while another person might want to  register it as a DDC.   

These are very valid points. I think the project at hand is so large 
 that we  will need to build into the standard a very flexible  
approach that allows  Topic Map creators the use of these class  
schemes while tolerating the  possiblility that they might be  
misused. Valididity, over time, will derive    from trustworthiness  
of authors and as Mary indicates there could be  some sorts of  
validating agents.  Also, we may be able to map (using a  Topic  
Map?) subjects from one scheme to another such as the LCSH -
 - CANCER to the MESH --NEOPLASMS. Even this  
however, would  be a large undertaking. In order for the  
Published Subjects system to be  generally useful it seems to me  
that it will be necessary to 1) allow Topic  Map creators access  
to the best developed general classification  schemes such as  
those outlined in Dublin Core 2) allow them to also  associate  
internally generated class schemes appropriate to a small   
community, or 3) choose not to use  Published Subjects at all if  
the  Topic Map is just for local use. Perhaps one of the  
decisions about how  and which maps to merge may have to do  
with which class scheme is  used and how well it  maps to  
another class scheme--- but determining  that mapping will  
require expertise.   

The alternative is  the creation of a single repository with  
Published  Subjects that some group (us?) establishes and  
maintains. Since I know   the  time and energy  expended by  the 
 Library Of Congress on creating,  maintining and modifying the  
LCSH classification system, I would  not  recommend this  
approach unless there are enormous resources  available. And  
even if there were, it seems unlikely that a single  repository  
would meet all of the classification needs of every Topic Map   
from the most specific to the most general. 


On another note, A feature of some of the early PSI's that I saw  
was the  addition of some association elements to the subject.  
Most of the Dublin  Core classification schemes don't go much  
beyond "broader term" or  "narrower term".  I don't know how  
the associations would be added to  the subjects in the above  
schemes.   


---Suellen   

Date sent:      	Mon, 05 Nov 2001 16:22:55 +0100  
From:           	Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>  
Subject:        	[tm-pubsubj] Next TC meeting agenda and  
documents  
To:             	tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org  
Priority:       	normal  
	<mailto:tm-pubsubj-request@lists.oasis- 
open.org?body=subscribe>  
	<mailto:tm-pubsubj-request@lists.oasis- 
open.org?body=unsubscribe>  
	<mailto:tm-pubsubj-request@lists.oasis-open.org?body=help>  

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]   

The next PubSubj TC meeting (conference call) will take place   
on November 20 from 16.00 to 18.00 UTC  

Phone number to be delivered  

Three points on the agenda:  

1. Draft TC Requirements Document  

A draft document has been prepared and is visible on-line:  
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm- 
pubsubj/docs/requirements.htm  

Please take time to review it, as well as Mary's contribution to  
discussion:  
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/registry- 
usecase.htm  

(It would be fine to start exchanging on those documents on-line  
before the co-call ...)  

2. Editor(s)  

The chair would like to delegate the TC editor's role to, or at least  
share editing responsibility   
with, some english native-speaker(s). Volunteer(s) much welcome.  

3. Liaisons  

Determination of organizations and working groups the TC should  
work in liaison with,  
and designation of TC members assuming those liaisons.   

Hoping everybody will make it to the call-in number this time :)  

Bernard  


Bernard Vatant - Consultant  
bernard.vatant@mondeca.com  
Mondeca - "Making Sense of Content"  
www.mondeca.com  


----------------------------------------------------------------  
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription  
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>  
------- End of forwarded message ------- 
Suellen Stringer-Hye
Jean and Alexander Heard Library
Vanderbilt University
stringers@library.vanderbilt.edu