Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] ISSUE 0 - Generalisation of scope

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

> > Generalisation of Published Subjects scope to "subject-oriented applications" ?

*Steve Pepper
> We want PSIs to be as widely used as possible, also outside the
> domain of topic maps. We should therefore strive to make the
> recommendations as general as possible. We don't want people to
> reject the PSI approach just because they aren't into topic maps.

Agreed

> On the other hand, topic maps are where the concept of PSIs came
> from; they are the paradigm that is currently best able take
> advantage of PSIs and also the one most likely to embrace PSIs
> first. (I would also like to ensure that any interest generated
> by the concept of PSIs also serves to promote the topic map
> paradigm.)

> Therefore we need to find exactly the right balance between
> ("subject-oriented application") generality and (topic map)
> specificity.

Agreed again - that balance point we have not found yet.

> In general, I like the concept of "subject-oriented
> applications", but I hate the name. It will never catch on! If
> we could come up with something better, I would support starting
> out with the more general approach and narrowing it where
> necessary.

I'm not happy with the term either. That's why I've always written it "between quotes".

> I've racked my brains for a suitable name but cannot come up
> with anything that is both short-and-snappy and also
> sufficiently precise.

>    (1) Invent a new name and use it until it becomes second
>    nature. This is risky, but if we can gain acceptance for the
>    name the advantages will be enormous. (I might start a thread
>    for brainstorming such a name...)

Hmmm. I don't think we have really a new concept here, so would prefer to stick to
existing terminology - see below.

>    (2) Provide a clear explanation of the concept of
>    "subject-oriented application" up front and then state that we
>    will use the term "application" (or "Application") throughout
>    the document to denote that concept.

I've wondered for a while if "subject-oriented" does not mean simply "semantic"?

-- It's short and snappy, but OTOH not very precise, although ... are not semantic
technologies those which rely on non-ambiguous identification of terms meaning?

-- It declares clearly that our work belongs to the scope of the general Semantic Web
technologies. Do we agree on that?

Hot stuff !!

Bernard