Re: [tm-pubsubj] Re: Country.xtm PSI; also proposed region.xtm PSI

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

Murray

I am as uneasy with your proposition as I was with the one concerning the
republication of XTM 1.0 a few months ago.
This is definitely not in the charter of PubSubj TC as is. Maybe it could be
thought as a subcommittee?

But the "Big Picture" about published subjects we discussed in Montréal was to
have PubSubj TC for general recommendations, and various specific TCs for field
applications of those recommendations, bringing insight from field experts and
users in well defined areas. This seems quite bureaucratic, I acknowledge, but
it is a way both to keep each working group into focus, and bring interest in
the process from field experts outside the "core" topic maps community.

In this very case, I suppose - I've no specific knowledge in that field - there
is a published legacy of countries, regions and languages terminology maintained
by various authorities (ISO and others), and I would imagine a good idea would
be to explore with those very authorities how this legacy can be used as
published subjects, how it can fit into PubSubj TC recommendations with the less
rewriting effort, etc. It's both of marketing and technical interest to bring
the existing legacy of taxonomies and classifications in the field of published
subjects.

Other opinions?

Bernard

> Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> >
> > Here's what I think: we should make a TC for country, language, and
> > region published subjects. The TC should follow the guidelines laid
> > down by the tm-pubsubj TC and function as a test-case for those
> > guidelines, while at the same time updating and extending the country
> > and language PS sets in XTM 1.0.
> >
> > I have most of the charter for this TC written already, so unless
> > there are complaints I will finish that charter and send it out for
> > comments.

 ...

> I can't remember the exact discussion that resulted in the creation of
> the PubSubj TC, but it strikes me as additional bureaucratic tangle to
> create yet one more TC to deal with essentially an update of existing
> XTM topic maps, when it's likely that the authors/editors of those
> topic maps are already present in this TC. I would suggest we revisit
> creation of a new TC and look at whether or not it's within the current
> charter to perhaps tackle this. Creation of a new TC would seem to only
> provide additional delays in getting work on the updates on the table.