[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Good PSIs never die
Thomas Bandholtz
XML Network
Competence Center Content
Management
SchlumbergerSema
Sema GmbH
Kaltenbornweg 3
D50679
Köln/Cologne
+49 (0)221 8299 264
-----Original Message-----Hi Thomas,
From: Kal Ahmed [mailto:kal@techquila.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 1:19 PM
To: Bandholtz, Thomas
Subject: RE: [topicmaps-comment] Good PSIs never die
I'm replying to you directly because I do not have privileges to post to the working group list.
At 12:38 21/03/2002 +0100, you wrote:
> For PSIs which are generated from some source of information
> about subjects
> such as a database, is it reasonable to also require that a
> human-accessible version of the data be available ?
If you use a GET request like "[psi-service-url]?id=xyz" for the PSI, the database service can return the topic having id=xyz in any agreed format, i.e. XTM. This *is* human-accessable. Why create another version?
I see a clear distinction between the Published Subject Indicator and the topic which reifies the indicated subject. I think from your comment that you do too and that you see the psi-service as being the way to bridge this gap. Is that correct ?
I was replying to the suggestion that the indicator itself should be dereferenced to provide a human-readable resource. In either case (direct dereferencing or dereferencing via a service) I don't think that a publisher should always be expected to provide a human-readable resource for every PSI. Of course, I recognise that there is likely to be a topic for every indicator and in fact, I would argue that the *only* machine readable metadata that should be provided when a PSI is dereferenced should be the URI of the topic which reifies the subject.
Cheers,
Kal
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC