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

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

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

* Lars Marius
> 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.

Well. I think indeed we discuss nebulous concepts because we've been too generic so far.
And I definitely plead guilty for that. And that's why I suggest now that try and focus on
precise use cases - making existing classification legacy available as PSIs - may provide
the handle we need.

> 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.

Don't you figure that it would be easier to define those components in a specific use case
than from a generic viewpoint?

 > 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.

I don't think I catch what you mean there. Too many "this" and "that" for my English
parser :))

> 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.

Let's not be that formal, please. Any orientation of the TC should be out of consensus or
voted following OASIS guidelines.
The responsibility of the chair is to make the process move forward, but defining the
way(s) is a collective process IMO, where my opinion is equal to yours or any other TC
member's.

Bernard