[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Good PSIs never die
> Kal cannot post to this list. He has interesting contributions. > Isn't tm-pubsubj-comment public? He should subscribe first. Then he can post. </karl> ================================================================= Karl F. Best OASIS - Director, Technical Operations +1 978.667.5115 x206 karl.best@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org -----Original Message----- From: Bandholtz, Thomas [mailto:thomas.bandholtz@koeln.sema.slb.com] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:35 AM To: 'tm-pubsubj-comment@lists.oasis-open.org' Cc: 'bernard.vatant@mondeca.com' Subject: FW: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Good PSIs never die Kal cannot post to this list. He has interesting contributions. Isn't tm-pubsubj-comment public? -----Original Message----- From: Kal Ahmed [mailto:kal@techquila.com] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:10 PM To: Bandholtz, Thomas Subject: RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Good PSIs never die Thomas, My last email was bounced by the list as well... :-( At 13:54 21/03/2002 +0100, you wrote: [Kal:] No one has yet said that the documentation would be XML ! But even so which is more human readable: <record> <isbn>123456-09-23</isbn> <auth-code>AHM1298</auth-code> <pubdate>20011110</pubdate> <stock-code>98993939385402</stock-code> </record> <book> <book-title>XML Meta Data</book-title> <authors> <author>Kal Ahmed</author> <author>Danny Ayers</author> ... </authors> <published>2001-11-10</published> <description> -- blurb about the book goes here </description> </book> I would suggest that XML of the first form is "machine-readable" and XML of the second form is "human-readable". But depending upon the system(s) involved, the first form might be the only form that can be automatically generated for the subject indicator. [Thomas:] We have been talking about XTM, RDF, XHTML, customized XML so far - all this is XML. But you may be right - needs not to be XML. But I think it should not be binary encoded. If this became a limitation for a PSI, it would restrict PSIs to being a much smaller subset of all subject indicators. The ISO and XTM specifications do not specify a format for a subject indicator. I guess it would be a shame if that flexibility had to be sacrificed for PSIs. Readability only depends on the specific intelligence implemented in the machine/human. If I (human, hopefully) understand the encoding of <auth-code> etc., I can read it. If a machine doesn't, it cannot read it neither. This is true within the definition of "readable". But should a PSI resource be "readable" or "understandable". If it is the latter, should that "understandability" be dependent on other knowledge external to the resource itself ? In limited circumstances (e.g. intranet or extranet environments) it could be argued that all users of the PSI would know what auth-code indictaed (esp. if using a documented schema). But in generalised internet solutions, surely a subject indicator that relies on knowledge of yet another schema would be flawed ? Cheers, Kal
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC