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

[Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>]

At 11:33 10/01/02 +0100, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>Let's sum up the positions, if I get them correctly
>
>...
>
>Murray and Bernard think that this specific TC should be open to field experts
>of various organizations,
>and not restricted to internal debate in the topic map core community 
>concerning
>controversial existing PSIs.

Whether or not this makes sense depends on what we want to achieve with 
this committee. My primary aim is to get corrected versions of country and 
language out as soon as possible, and ensure that they encourage best 
practices, as regards both topic map modeling in general and published 
subject definition in particular.

To my mind, these PSI sets should simply express what is in the 
corresponding ISO standards (3166 and 639) in a form usable by topic map 
applications and DO NO MORE THAN THAT! They should contain no extended 
material beyond what is in 3166 and 639; there should be no mappings (for 
example) from ISO codes to other controlled vocabularies or natural 
languages. All that kind of stuff is fraught with difficulties and 
contention, and we should steer clear of it. Our job is pure translation. 
If there are inconsistencies in the ISO standards, we should find a topic 
map representation that preserves those inconsistencies.

Given that, I don't see the need for domain expertise. If anyone knows of 
specific issues in the ISO standards that cannot be handled without 
recourse to domain experts, I would like to hear about them. Otherwise I 
think this particular task should be done quickly and efficiently by us. 
(In fact, I believe Lars Marius has already done it.)

>Steve P. prefers to see the question tackled inside PubSubj TC.

No. I'm easy. Whatever gets the job done as quickly and efficiently as 
possible.

> > It could make sense to extend the charter of PubSubj to encompass these
> > two, on the grounds that they already have some kind of semi-official
> > existence and are themselves establishing a precedent for other sets of
> > published subjects.
>
>This "semi-official existence" is by itself an issue, as you are well 
>aware of.

I don't think it's an issue. It's a *problem* in a sense that those two PSI 
sets are out there and are referenced by the specification in a way that 
encourages people to regard them as having some form of seal of approval. 
Whether they do or not is irrelevant, as long as people believe that. They 
need to be made to be exemplary in every way possible.

> > This really is the job of PubSubj, so by taking in
> > country and language, the existing TC would be neutralising a possible
> > competitor!
>
>What do you have in mind? What kind of competitor or competition?

Simply that country and language as they are now are setting a precedent 
that will be in conflict with the guidelines PubSubj intends to create. The 
longer they are around (in their present form), the harder it will be to 
clear up the resulting mess.

I still think a discussion of the statement of purpose is more important 
than deciding whether or not to start a new TC. It could take place in this 
forum, if the rest of the TC agree. Otherwise we should take it elsewhere.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246