Kal is subscribed! (was RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Good PSIs never die)

[Kal Ahmed <kal@techquila.com>]

My mistake, I had thought that because this was a public list I didn't need 
to subscribe but could just post. My apologies to those who had to read (or 
delete) this diversion from the thread.

Kal

At 08:53 25/03/2002 -0500, Karl F. Best wrote:
> > 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
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>