[tm-pubsubj-comment] Strawman Issue 1: Should we recommend use of XTM?Machine Processable?

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

Hi Steve,
I will start a few of these  in separate threads, you sure did put a lot of 
thought into this. Thank you.

*Steve Pepper
GENERAL POINTS
--------------
The first point to note is that I have chosen to express my subject
indicators as topics in a topic map. I believe there will be substantial
benefits to using a machine processable syntax and, in particular, topic
maps, for published subjects. Although we have agreed not to REQUIRE any
particular syntax, I think we should RECOMMEND using XTM and provide
examples of how to do so.
* Issue: What are the arguments for using a machine processable syntax?
* Issue: Should we recommend use of XTM?

*Mary

Yes, I think that we should recommend XTM as the syntax for the published 
subject indicators. I am not so sure if the individual topics should be the 
indicators themselves (I might be having a hard time understanding how this 
self referential concept would work).
Since the subject indicators are "resources'" can't  we use resourceData in 
an occurrence as the subject indicators within the XTM? This is the 
approach that I am taking now. I really do not know what is the best but I 
am just trying it out to see how it fits.

I think that whatever we recommend, it should be machine processable.

-- Mary