[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [tm-pubsubj] Subject Indicator vs Subject Descriptor
Following November 20 meeting, consensus of present people seems to be established on the following points (correct me if I am wrong). A Published Subject should provide two distinct parts: 1. Subject Indicator (URI or URL) as to be used through <subjectIndicatorRef xlink:href> It is thought that this should be both -- a syntactic identifier, to be used by software as a mere character string, without any further processing and interpretation. -- a pointer to a resolvable resource (the Subject Descriptor defined below). No, or the least possible, "semantics" are to be put in the string itself, apart from a standard structure, allowing software or humans to identify it as a Subject Indicator. 2. Subject Descriptor It is the content of the resource that the Subject Indicator resolves to. It is where the subject is properly defined and/or described, in other terms it is where the semantics are grounded, and the Topic Map recursive process ends. For the recursivity to end effectively, the Subject Descriptor have to be defined not in Topic Map terminology, but at a meta-level. Best candidate for standard Subject Descriptor structure could be built upon RDF-Dublin Core elements. Such a standard Subject Descriptor could be used by parsers to extract metadata on the subject, like publisher, date of creation, validation etc. I propose that this distinction be explicitly stated on TC requirements, as well as the requirement to deliver a syntax for both Subject Indicator and Subject Descriptor. Comments *most* welcome. Bernard Bernard Vatant - Consultant bernard.vatant@mondeca.com Mondeca - "Making Sense of Content" www.mondeca.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC