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: Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] ISSUES


Suellen Stringer-Hye wrote:

> Not that this adresses the issue of whether to include dc:subject in the 
> PSI, but in the reverse one would like to be able to insert the PSI identifier 
> into the dc:subject field of the metadata. Thus looking something like this 
> 
> <meta name = "DC.Subject" 
> scheme = "MeSH" 
> content = "Myocardial Infarction; Pericardial Effusion"
> psi = "insert psi-identifier"
>
> In fact one could do away with the scheme and content elements entirely 
> and insted it would be 
> 
> <meta name = "DC.Subject"  
> psi = "insert psi-identifier"


Certainly.


> Whatever we come up with for Topic Map applications should not 
> impede this use. 
> 
> My main interest in working with this TC is pretty simple---to move and 
> leverage already published subjects in the analog realm into the digital 
> realm in a way that will be useful across applications so in that I guess I 
> differ from many in the group. I have already had communications with 
> some folks at the Library of Congress and they are planning to "publish" 
> some subjects soon. It would be nice if we had some templates already 
> in place that we could point them to. 


Suellen, 


Those who've heard my rantings during the development of XTM know
that I've been trying very hard to gain acceptance for XTM within
the library community, hence my interest and experimentation with
Dublin Core and Dewey DC as topic maps, and my steady encouragement
of "library semantics" into XTM. I'm very happy to hear that the LoC
is ready to make use of topic maps (at least insofar as they want
to publish PSIs), and I would hope that anything we produce as specs,
recommendations for best practices, examples, etc. would be fully
compatible with their needs. The Dublin Core was built around ISO
11179 compatibility with these needs in mind, and as I've tried to
make clear, this isn't a complicating factor for us since Dublin
Core has already done the work for us.

I do think it important to be able to translate back and forth
between the topic map and library categorization world, and do it
in a way that is fully specified (no guessing about meaning or
context of any data) and as you say, no imposition on usage. This
is why I believe that the same set of ISO 11179 attributes that
"made it" as DC elements (not necessarily the entire ISO 11179
attributes) should be available as PSIs, though those that didn't
"make it as elements" could be declared as constants for all
PSIs in much the same way as this was done for DCES. None of this
is particularly difficult, it's just necessary if one is to do
this "right." I'd not want to do this incorrectly in front of
such a large, ready-to-implement audience such as LoC, OCLC, or
those in the W3C interested in what we're doing. It's not a good
time to dot our tees and cross our eyes.

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                  <http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/>
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu



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


Powered by eList eXpress LLC