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

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

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| 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.

* Bernard Vatant
| 
| 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.

That sounds like a good approach to me. It's also likely to help us
better understand our requirements.
 
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| 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.
 
* Bernard Vatant
|
| Don't you figure that it would be easier to define those components
| in a specific use case than from a generic viewpoint?

It probably would, but I think just diving into the details of PSD
structure would be just as helpful. That's what I do in the new thread
I started, in order to get started on clearing this up.
 
| I don't think I catch what you mean there. Too many "this" and
| "that" for my English parser :))

Doesn't matter. :) Just read the thread I started instead.
 
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| 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.
 
* Bernard Vatant
|
| 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.

I agree completely, but I feel that I am a trouble-making minority of
one, and so if it's clear that the committee disagrees with me I'll
conform rather than obstruct our progress. That's what I was trying to
say.

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