OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tm-pubsubj-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: [tm-pubsubj-comment] ISSUE 1 - PS Doc Identification andauto-referencing


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

>The PS Doc, which is an addressable subject, is used as an
>auto-referencing PSI.
>
>Should not the notion of auto-referencing PSI be defined in the
>introducing section or/and glossary?
>
>Proposal:
>
>Introduce the distinction between addressable and
>non-addressable subjects identified by PSIs, leading two the
>definition of three classes of PSIs:
>
>-- Class 1: The subject is non-addressable
>-- Class 2: The subject is addressable, but it is different of
>    the subject indicator itself
>-- Class 3: The subject is the subject indicator
>    (auto-referencing PSI)
>
>PS Docs should belong to Class 3.

When you say "auto-referencing" do you mean the same as
"self-reference" (the term I used originally)?

I talked about self-referencing in connection with my proposal
to use topic maps to represent PSI sets. I was faced with two
questions:

- how to specify the published subject identifier, and
- how to differentiate between topics intended to be used as
   PSIs and other topics

The solution (to which, by the way, I am by no means wedded) was
to specify the subject identity of a PSI topic using a subject
indicator reference to the topic itself. This approach, which I
called this "self-reference", seemed to kill two birds with one
stone.

But this means that "self-referencing" is only of interest in the
context of PSIs (not PS Docs, which is where you have it), when
topic maps are used to represent the PSI set.

I think self-referencing also relates to the question you raised
earlier about whether it makes sense for a topic that is used as a
PSI to both reify and indicate the same subject. I think this does
make sense, but again, it's only an issue if we represent PSI sets
as topic maps. If we don't, it pretty much goes away.

So I don't see the point of your proposal for distinguishing
between three classes of PSIs.

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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC