[tm-pubsubj-comment] ISSUE 10 - PSIs "name" "subject" and "description"

[Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>]

Bernard wrote (in 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/issues.htm):

>-- How is "name" different from "subject" here?
>-- What should "subject" provide? a definition? or what?
>-- Is not it redundant with below "description"?

If I understand correctly, you are starting from three DC
elements (actually *title*, subject and description) and asking
whether they correspond to metadata that would be useful on
individual PSIs, as opposed to the PSI set as a whole. Right?

>Proposal:

My take:

>In a strict topic map view
>
>"name" should be used as baseName in the scope defined by
>"domain". And the TNC should apply there (see ISSUE 11)

The subject indicated by a PSI would have one or more base
names, each of which would correspond to dc:title. The
requirements relating to natural language names should be as
described in my proposal for Section 5.1 ("Recommendations for
using XTM", posted 2002-04-24), whether XTM is used or not.

(I will comment on the TNC in connection with ISSUE 11.)

>"subject" ... may provide a variant name ??

dc:subject is unnecessary on PSIs. We only need its equivalent
on PSI sets. (See separate posting, on ISSUE 9, proposing to call
this "keywords", to avoid confusion.)

>"description" is a full descriptive resource (text, image) -
>clearly a specific occurrence type

Yes. And each PSI should be required to have one.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246