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

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

Murray

> There's always a number of dangers one runs into when generalizing,
> and I probably don't need to enumerate them here.

So I guess you won't be very happy with the proposal of introducing any allusion to
"semantic web" in the recommendations.
OTOH W3C SW Activity people like Eric Miller and Jim Hendler have declared that Published
Subjects are to be considered as very relevant tools for the Semantic Web. So, even if we
are not completely convinced, maybe it's a good diplomatic move :))

> Since (as you say in your second paragraph) we can be fairly assured of acceptance
> and relevance by sticking within the domain of topic maps, I would
> recommend against trying to come up with new terminology and simply
> define PSIs in the domain of topic maps, and *then* in some section
> or appendix explain how they can be used more generally, describing
> perhaps some examples. Maybe in some other documentation one could
> describe in more detail these other applications.

That's the way I see it. Just make an allusion to it in the introduction, and develop
further on, maybe in the 3rd deliverable (Use of PSIs)

Bernard