Re: [geolang-comment] Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Baltimore minutes

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

* Bernard Vatant
| 
| The process that we had in PubSubj was to look at GeoLang proposal
| vs what PubSubj general recommendations or requirements are so far
| and will be. What was agreed on was that URLs should carry some
| semantics to human users, and in that spirit, the alpha code was
| considered better than the numeric one.

This is not what I remember at all. We didn't discuss whether to use
alpha or numeric codes in the PubSubj meeting at all. What we
discussed was lowercase vs uppercase, and as far as I recall we
decided to follow what the standards themselves said.

| OTOH I remember that in Montréal, Lars Marius among others stressed
| the fact that too much semantics in URLs was not that a good idea,
| leading to the opposite conclusion. This is indeed something to fix
| in terms of process.

Yes.
 
| It seems to me that GeoLang (idem XMLvoc) has to push proposals,
| then PubSubj has to review them to see if they fit the general
| requirements and recommendations, consider the input to make those
| R&R progress, then push its conclusions, comments and
| recommendations to GeoLang to consider. And at some point GeoLang
| has to comply, since compliance is in its charter.

Agreed.
 
| The more I think about it, the more we should recommend that a
| directory URL should be, by default, the PSI for the set of PSIs
| published in the directory. Any other interpretation

Yuck! You need to look at the resource you get by resolving that URI,
and see if it contains anything that can reasonably be said to be a
subject indicator with those semantics. That won't generally be true,
and I don't think it should be, either.

IMHO we shouldn't create PSIs for anything before we see a clear need.
In this case I don't see a need at all. 

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