[tm-pubsubj-comment] Re: ISSUE 4 - Relationships between subjects

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Bernard Vatant
| 
| I don't think this issue is *soup* to be pushed on the backburner.

No, the issue isn't "soup", nor is it in any way unimportant. In fact,
I think this is one of the key issues that we have to face. 

What I am complaining about is that we are trying to tackle it without
the necessary understanding of the infrastructure that PSI authors
would use to address this issue. We don't yet have any terminology for
discussing this issue, and that turns any *discussion* of it into
soup, where various nebulous concepts float around, but nobody can
really get a handle on anything.

So what I would like us to do is to freeze all these issues for a week
or two, and sit down and look at what the different components that
could into a PSD could be, to come up with terms for each, and to try
to get a grasp of their possible relationships.

Armed with that we would be ready to discuss this issue.

| My view is at the opposite that it is a concrete use case on which
| we can think and procede efficiently about structure of PS Doc
| and/or individual PSIs, out of the fuzzy and complex land of
| generalities.

That's a possible point of view, but then, why not list PSD structure
as an issue and start a thread on it? We can pursue that issue there
and those who want to drag this issue into that discussion can do so.

Anyway, you are chair, and effectively responsible for the process.
If you say "we will take approach X" I'll be loyal and do my best to
follow, but I want to make my opinion known before that happens, so
you can make an informed decision.
 
| The class/subclass (or BT-NT) example is typical and important,
| because most potential PS Docs will consist of, or contain some kind
| of, classification, taxonomy, ontology ...  thesaurus. 

Absolutely. I think the issue is very important, but also premature.

| So back to the frontburner - Say we have a botanical taxonomy for
| trees
|
| [...]
| 
| Say what?

I'd say that you're making some interesting points about a different
issue from number 4, and one that doesn't have a number yet. I'll
answer you in a new thread, and then I can have the order I want, and
you can have the progress you want. Hopefully that will satisfy both
of us.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >