[tm-pubsubj-comment] RE: paradigmatic PSIs

["Mason, James David (MXM) " <mxm@ornl.gov>]

Since Lars Marius responded to my first version of the message in question
but I had by then forwarded it to the larger group, I'm going to take the
liberty of forwarding his response (and endorsing it in the process).

I want to add something, however, from an SC34 point of view. He says "I
think if SRN cares really deeply about these PSIs he should try to come up
with some URI for the indicators that has a very very robust resolution
mechanism." 

I'll leave it to SRN to say what he cares about, but developing  "a very
very robust resolution mechanism" is outside the scope of SC34. I suspect
it's outside the scope of OASIS, too. It might well be within the scope of
the W3C or the IETF. If they're interested in developing such, they should
do so, and SC34 can use it. Otherwise it's likely to remain one of those
problems that we all suffer with on the Net, and not just as an issue for
TMs. 

Jim Mason

James David Mason, Ph.D.

Y-12 National Security Complex
Bldg. 9113, M.S. 8208
P.O. Box 2009
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-8208

+1 865 574 6973

Chairman, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34
http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/ornlsc34oldhome.htm


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Lars Marius Garshol [SMTP:larsga@garshol.priv.no]
> Sent:	Tuesday, April 09, 2002 8:26 AM
> To:	Mason, James David (MXM) 
> Cc:	'Steven R. Newcomb'; shunting@etopicality.com; Michel Biezunski;
> jan; masonjd@ornl.gov; em@w3.org; bernard.vatant@mondeca.com;
> nogievet@cogx.com
> Subject:	Re: paradigmatic PSIs
> 
> 
> * James David Mason
> | 
> | If you tell me that the "paradigmatic PSIs" have to be somewhere
> | reachable by Net for TM systems to work,
> 
> They don't. In fact, I am not sure whether they will actually appear
> in any topic maps at all. As far as I can make out, the only reason
> why they would appear in an XTM 1.0 topic maps would be if someone
> wanted to make statements about these subjects (say for the purposes
> of topic map documentation). They would *not* be needed for XTM 1.0
> topic maps to work.
> 
> If someone were to make a syntax based on the RM it might be that
> implementations of this would need these PSIs, but this is highly
> theoretical, and even in this case what would be needed would only be
> the URIs, and not the indicators themselves. Software needing to
> identify the subject of a topic would look at the URI; it would *not*
> resolve the URI to a resource and look at the resource.
> 
> | Now, if, as Lars Marius suggests, he wants a PSI to explain Ontopia,
> | that's a different matter. He can put it somewhere on
> | psi.ontopia.net, and that's good enough. Whether I can reach it or
> | not matters only if I want to see Ontopia's self definition.
> 
> Exactly. Merging of your topic maps with J. Random Hacker's will still
> work if you use that PSI, and if empolis wants their TM browser to
> display a big warning for this particular topic they could do it
> without downloading anything, they would just look at the URI.
>  
> | If you really want to put something on the Net, you're back to an
> | issue that's been around as long as I've been messing with
> | standards, though that began before most of you were probably aware
> | of the Net, and we didn't build it into any standards. You're
> | talking about registered data and having a Registration Authority to
> | maintain it (or you're talking self-registration, as in
> | "psi.ontopia.net").
> 
> I think we're all talking self-registration, actually. At least I very
> much hope so.
> 
> Actually, I think if SRN cares really deeply about these PSIs he
> should try to come up with some URI for the indicators that has a very
> very robust resolution mechanism. Having a proliferation of URIs for
> each subject is more or less equivalent to crippling the whole
> mechanism from the start.
>  
> | I've argued with Charles about a lot of things over the years,
> | including this subject. I hate to admit it, but I think he was right
> | in 9070. You shouldn't commit future users to needing some resource
> | that needs maintenance. It's asking too much. Self registration is
> | the way to go unless you're actually standardizing the essence of
> | the very lowest level of something (like assigning code points in
> | UNICODE -- and look at the task they have on their hands for
> | stability, not to mention volume).
> |
> | If we want to say what a PSI should look like and how it should be
> | documented, that's fine. We can make the standard an example of
> | itself. If we want to issue further guidelines for those who come
> | after us, that's fine too. That is, I believe, what Bernard's
> | committee is about. But let's not make the standard depend on
> | anything more than its own words, wherever they may be (like on
> | paper in a drawer).
> 
> I agree very much with this.
> 
> -- 
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >