[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] formal syntax
Thomas > To be short: > As far as I can see, every successful standard owns one (1) formal syntax. > See DTD, Schema, SOAP, XSL, whatsoever. Agreed so far > I think we should concentrate on developing *one final* syntax for topic maps ... Might be, although I feel more happy with XTM 1.0 that many people seem to be, and in fact the more I use it, the more I like it. > ... and we should also use it for PSI, as PS are topics. No we should not, because they are not. That is the point we can't agree upon obviously. Subjects are subjects, and topics are representations of subjects. And topic maps have to be plugged one way to information resource layers via occurrences and one way to non-addressable subject layers - ontologies, vocabulary, thesaurus, classifications - via subject indicators. Looking closely, those two layers are not that much different from each other, and at least they share the common characteristic to be managed outside the topic maps, and I repeat it's unsustainable to ask publishers to reduce their subject definition and description to a single syntax and format, the same way you can't ask authors to use the same DTD for all their documents. Well ... I'm definitely feeling like we are speaking past each other here. Hope we'll get to something more constructive F2F in Barcelona next week ... Bernard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC