Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] More grumbling

[Mary Nishikawa <nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>]

>* Lars Marius Garshol
>
>
>For HTML I think we should take a close and serious look at HTML
>metadata profiles. I think they would be simple enough for people to
>use, yet formal and powerful enough for what we need. See
>   <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.4.4.3 >


We can also take a look at Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2731.txt once again.

Also,  please go back and take a look at the metadata in

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/mni/unspsc-71.htm

If you do a search in google for these
DC.Title.PSI
DC.Creator.PSI
DC.Publisher.PSI

You only get one hit. This: 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tm-pubsubj-comment/200204/msg00053.html
Scroll down and you will see the metadata elements. This may have 
possibilities.

The metadata was not picked up in the htm file above, though. Maybe OASIS 
has a nofollow policy for webcrawlers for TC areas?

I think that if I ever publish PSIs, I will advertise them from an OASIS 
mail list ;-)



>| Indeed. We should be less fuzzy on that to reduice the noise. If we
>| recommend the use of the token "psi", we maybe should recommend a
>| more precise use of it, like its position in the URI string, and
>| maybe recommend a whole standard structure like:
>| http://psi.myorg.foo/scope/subject.html

Yes,  I agree with it and it is in keeping with my example in a paper I 
will give at Extreme Markup.
http://psi.eccma.org/UNSPSC/71.htm This URL works well for the UNSPSC 
classification, but may not work for other domains.   We may be able to 
recommend http://psi.myorg.foo, but I do not know about the rest.


>That means you have to own a domain in order to be able to create a
>PSI, and I don't think we really want that. It should be enough to own
>webspace in order to be able to create a URI. So I would very much
>prefer some form of structured metadata, as described above.

The structured metadata is a good idea, but  for those who don't have 
domains, why not recommend the use of PURL? I do not understand the 
aversion to this by everyone in our TC.

>
>| IMO what we want to achieve is to allow search engines - and also
>| humans - to distinguish with the less noise possible URIs who are
>| declared PSIs from those who are not. Of course we will not get rid
>| of all the noise, but we can put it down to a reasonable level by
>| recommending a given URI structure.
>
>Aha, so this is about humans, too, is it? I guess that means we should
>come up with some text that can be put in a PSD to identify the
>intention that it serve as a PSD.
>
>| [human-interpretable, yet stable]

I think that the web page containing information on the psis with  metadata 
would be good enough for people to figure out what  the PSIs are. Unique 
numerical identifiers for  subjects within some human interpretable domain 
(http://psi.mdomain.foo) could be implemented. (I illustrate this in the 
paper that I will give at Extreme Markup.)

>|
>| Could you explain exactly where you think the contradiction lies?
>
>I explained it below that statement: something that is meaningful to
>humans is something humans are likely to want to change at some point.

My feelings too.


>And I agree that it certainly is difficult to come up with some
>abstract prose that provides useful guidance on when to use meaningful
>identifiers and when not to, but I am not at all convinced that doing
>so is within the scope of this TC.

I agree. It would also depend on the controlled vocabulary that is being 
expressed for the subjects.


>I think the best we can do is to either leave this issue alone
>completely, or else to write a general "best practices" document and
>cover this as one of the issues there.

I think that what Steve presented is one way of doing things. I did not 
take it to mean that we would be recommending it as  the one and only way 
of doing things,  however, we need to have more examples too.

-- Mary