[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Deliverable 1 : New draft on OASIS server
Bernard Vatant wrote:
> The last version of Deliverable 1, revised by Steve, is on-line on OASIS
> server. Sorry for the long URL!
[...]
> Please send objections if any.
None except what Bernard said:
> I have one comment/suggestion: Should not "Recommendation 6" ...
>
> "A Published Subject Indicator should explicitly state its Published
> Subject Identifier."
>
> become "Requirement 4" ...
>
> "A Published Subject Indicator must explicitly state its Published
> Subject Identifier."
>
> Or better, be integrated into Requirement 3, in the following way:
>
> "A Published Subject Indicator must have exactly one Published Subject
> Identifier, and explicitly state it."
"Must" if it's a requirement; "should"/"may" if it's a recommendation.
///Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
Received: (qmail 6968 invoked by uid 60881); 19 Mar 2003 22:35:12 -0000
Received: from pepper@ontopia.net by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(-0.2/8.0):.
Processed in 0.181196 secs); 19 Mar 2003 22:35:12 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=8.0
Received: from unknown (HELO sandbox.ontopia.net) (193.69.113.26)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 22:35:12 -0000
Received: from 145.80-202-173.nextgentel.com (pepe.ontopia.net) [80.202.173.145]
by sandbox.ontopia.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 18vmLI-00066G-00; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:47:28 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030319234038.01aa85e8@mail.ontopia.net>
X-Sender: pepper@mail.ontopia.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:40:58 +0100
To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>,
<tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org>
From: Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
Subject: Re: New OASIS data base and TC management
In-Reply-To: <20030318091403.7728D50009F7@mwinf0303.wanadoo.fr>
References: <3E6E4A20.2090105@silmaril.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 10:13 18.03.2003 +0100, Bernard Vatant wrote:
>Could you please confirm that you get this message OK and can post to
>the list, by answering to the list with cc to me.
Got it.
Steve
Received: (qmail 10710 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 03:07:10 -0000
Received: from nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(-1.3/8.0):.
Processed in 0.463061 secs); 20 Mar 2003 03:07:10 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=8.0
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.slb.com) (163.184.1.20)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 03:07:10 -0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.feamta01.singapore.fea.slb.com by
feamta01.singapore.fea.slb.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.02 (built Sep 16 2002))
id <0HC100901282EY@feamta01.singapore.fea.slb.com> for
tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:14:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from skkns5.fuchinobe.fea.slb.com
(skkns5.fuchinobe.fea.slb.com [163.184.10.30])
by feamta01.singapore.fea.slb.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.02 (built Sep 16 2002))
with ESMTP id <0HC100ERX2CYQH@feamta01.singapore.fea.slb.com> for
tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:14:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GPC736-SKK.fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com
(pc489.fuchinobe.fea.slb.com [163.184.11.189]) by skkns5.fuchinobe.fea.slb.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001))
with ESMTPA id <0HC100EMW2A6AW@skkns5.fuchinobe.fea.slb.com> for
tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:13:18 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:14:54 +0900
From: Mary Nishikawa <nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Comments from Dave Beckett
In-reply-to: <1048120410.6199.47.camel@birch>
X-Sender: nisikawa+fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com@pop.fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com
To: 'tm-pubsubj' <tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Message-id: <5.0.2.1.2.20030320115821.0203a768@pop.fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <m3ptovjymp.fsf@pc36.avidiaasen.online.no>
<m3ptovjymp.fsf@pc36.avidiaasen.online.no>
At 19:33 2003/03/19 -0500, Eric Miller wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 06:26, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> >
> > Dave Beckett is editor of some of the RDF specifications, so this is
> > really good. His comments are spot-on, too.
> >
> > <URL: http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/03/13/2003-03-13.html >
> >
> > I think the draft should be *very* careful when using the term
> > "resource". SAM consistently says "information resource", and defines
> > it to be a (potentially) network-retrievable resource. I think this
> > document should follow suit to avoid the problem that RFC 2396 defines
> > "resource" to essentially be equivalent to "subject". RDF people are
> > going to be seriously confused if we don't do this, I think.
>
>I agree with Lars (and in-turn with Dave) on this point. The issue
>addressed was one of the "stumbling blocks" I ran into as well as I
>(slowly) have been reviewing this work. It took me a bit to swap in the
>appropriate context.
>
>To the extent this group can minimize the necessary "context swap" that
>is required from various communities (RDF, librarians, taxonomists,
>etc.) that have been targeted to review this work, the better.
I recall that we agreed to use the DC definition of "resource." We need to
add this back perhaps?
In addition, we need to look again at using the acronym PSI for both
indicator and identifier.
dajobe: P3 PSI introduced without definition - is that Indicator or Identifier?
The term "subject identifier" is not in ISO 13250, so maybe we should
consider dropping it, since it does cause confusion.
dajobe: 2.4.2 " The address of a subject indicator is called a subject
identifier." but there is also something else called a 'subject address' !
We can think of describing this in prose. I find when I write about
published subjects, all I need to define are the indicators and I do not
mention the identifiers. It is really not necessary.
Cheers,
Mary
>--
>eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/
>semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
>w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/
Received: (qmail 416 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 10:16:57 -0000
Received: from bernard.vatant@mondeca.com by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(0.3/8.0):.
Processed in 0.458833 secs); 20 Mar 2003 10:16:57 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=8.0
Received: from unknown (HELO mwinf0305.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.22.28)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 10:16:56 -0000
Received: from mwinf0303.wanadoo.fr (mwinf0303 [172.22.134.25])
by mwinf0305.wanadoo.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52869616115F
for <tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:08:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bernard (unknown [80.9.93.234])
by mwinf0303.wanadoo.fr (Postfix) with SMTP
id 44A435000699; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:07:41 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <00e101c2eec8$4e4e0100$4b01a8c0@wanadoo.fr>
From: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
To: "Mary Nishikawa" <nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>,
"'tm-pubsubj'" <tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: "Eric Miller" <em@w3.org>
References: <m3ptovjymp.fsf@pc36.avidiaasen.online.no> <m3ptovjymp.fsf@pc36.avidiaasen.online.no> <5.0.2.1.2.20030320115821.0203a768@pop.fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Comments from Dave Beckett
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:51:53 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
*Eric Miller
> >To the extent this group can minimize the necessary "context swap" that
> >is required from various communities (RDF, librarians, taxonomists,
> >etc.) that have been targeted to review this work, the better.
*Mary Nishikawa
> I recall that we agreed to use the DC definition of "resource." We need to
> add this back perhaps?
Reference : Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1 [DC]
"Each Dublin Core definition refers to the resource being described. A resource is defined
in [RFC2396] as "anything that has identity". For the purposes of Dublin Core metadata, a
resource will typically be an information or service resource, but may be applied more
broadly."
Does this cover exactly what we mean by "resource" in our document? Not quite sure. It is
not consistent with 2.4 "most subjects are not resources". There are some authoritative
people in this TC who do not like that much the RFC2396 definition of "resource" (even
indirectly referenced by Dublin Core). Lars Marius has long ago supported that topic maps
"subject" and RDF "resource" are equivalent. And if I remember well, in a RDF-TM meeting
in Seattle a year ago, this was written down on a board and accepted as a consensus by
both TM and RDF folks in the room. So, if we want to be consistent, we should write
"information resource" all along instead of "resource".
> In addition, we need to look again at using the acronym PSI for both
> indicator and identifier.
OK. This keeps coming to the surface again and again. I had always mixed feelings about
it. My opinion now is that we should come back to the historical extension of the acronym
as Published Subject Indicator. See below.
> dajobe: P3 PSI introduced without definition - is that Indicator or Identifier?
This is the last sentence in the introduction: "This document provides an introduction to
Published Subjects and defines requirements and recommendations for publishers of PSI
sets."
Good remark. Using PSIs is useless here anyway, and the notion of PSI sets at that point
is confusing. The sentence should be cut after "publishers".
> The term "subject identifier" is not in ISO 13250, so maybe we should
> consider dropping it, since it does cause confusion.
<sigh/> Mary, we've had hard time pushing this notion, back in Orlando meeting, and the
distinction between "identifier for computers" and "indicator for humans" is central to
the recommendation. If we drop that distinction, it is "tabula rasa" and we are back to
the starting point of autumn 2001. Is it what you want?
> dajobe: 2.4.2 " The address of a subject indicator is called a subject
> identifier." but there is also something else called a 'subject address' !
Some subjects are information resources, and are directly addressable ... If that (2.3)
was not understood by Dave, who will understand it? This section was added by Steve, but
I'm not sure it brings anything more than confusion. Maybe we should strike any reference
to "addressable subjects" since they do not need subject indicators, although they need
identifiers, but that is the global URI issue, which is not in our TC scope, fortunately
... we have already worms enough in our can, don't need that one too :))
> We can think of describing this in prose. I find when I write about
> published subjects, all I need to define are the indicators and I do not
> mention the identifiers. It is really not necessary.
<deeper sigh/> Mary, I'm sort of desperate to read that ... The identifier is what the TM
applications will use to merge topics! So how can you sweep it under the carpet? I don't
understand, really.
Now, there is something that Dave's remarks made suddenly obvious to me, and that conforts
my previous message proposing to make Recommendation 6 a Requirement (BTW I had only
Pete's feedback so far about it).
The subject identifier (the URI) is a *required component* of the subject indicator. We
have not thought enough about the fact that there are various (unbounded in fact) ways to
retrieve the subject indicator (URL redirection, data base queries, whatever). Among
those, only one is the "good" URI, declared as identifier by the publisher. So this
identifier declaration has to be found *inside* the subject indicator. It's not a should,
it's a must. Otherwise if the subject indicator is retrieved by a "wrong" URI (e.g. a
redirected URL) there is no way to know that this URI is not the "good" one, and should
not be used as identifier. We have to be crystal clear on the fact that the subject
identifier is not any damned URI that can retrieve the subject indicator by any mean, but
*the* URI which is defined and explicitly written down *inside* the subject indicator by
the publisher.
Bernard
Received: (qmail 2495 invoked by uid 60881); 20 Mar 2003 15:08:46 -0000
Received: from Stringers@LIBRARY.Vanderbilt.edu by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
(spamassassin: 2.43. Clear:SA:0(-1.5/8.0):.
Processed in 0.247206 secs); 20 Mar 2003 15:08:46 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=8.0
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp1.mail.vanderbilt.edu) (129.59.1.75)
by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 15:08:46 -0000
Received: from smtp1.mail.vanderbilt.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8/VU-3.7C+d3.7) with ESMTP id h2KFGbhm021307;
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:16:37 -0600 (CST)
Received: from liberl.library.vanderbilt.edu (liberl.library.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.1.133])
by smtp1.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8/VU-3.7B+d3.7) with ESMTP id h2KFGbAg021302;
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:16:37 -0600 (CST)
Received: from library.vanderbilt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by liberl.library.vanderbilt.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2KFGZW07426;
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:16:35 -0600 (CST)
Received: from LIBRARY1A/SpoolDir by library.vanderbilt.edu (Mercury 1.48);
20 Mar 03 09:21:29 -0600
Received: from SpoolDir by LIBRARY1A (Mercury 1.48); 20 Mar 03 09:21:21 -0600
From: "Suellen Stringer-Hye" <Stringers@LIBRARY.Vanderbilt.edu>
Organization: Vanderbilt University
To: tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:21:18 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable
Subject: Re: New OASIS data base and TC management
CC: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Message-ID: <3E79880D.24957.CC171@localhost>
Priority: normal
References: <3E6E4A20.2090105@silmaril.ie>
In-reply-to: <20030318091403.7728D50009F7@mwinf0303.wanadoo.fr>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Confirmed
On 18 Mar 2003, at 10:13, Bernard Vatant wrote:
Folks
Since yesterday, all OASIS TC work has been transferred to a new
back-end data base management. This includes TC web pages, members
management, mailing list, meetings announcement, ballots and the like.
The most visible consequences of that migration by now is that the TC
Home Page looks very messy, working on and off, many old website
documents being no more available from it (although individual URLs of
the inner pages should continue to work OK ... if you had bookmarked
them, of course). For some reason, the documents that have been uploaded
into the new data base come from a backup of the website dating back to
May 2002. I just had the bandwidth to add the last draft of Deliverable
1.
I had to update in the data base the TC roster so that you keep being
subscribed to this mailing list. Note that I added Patrick Durusau,
Motomu Na=EFto and Eric Freese as voting members, since their three months
prospective membership is now over, but we'll have to make that official
at next meeting.
Could you please confirm that you get this message OK and can post to
the list, by answering to the list with cc to me.
Thanks
Bernard
_____________________________________
Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant - Knowledge Engineering
www.mondeca.com
_____________________________________
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Peter Flynn [mailto:peter@silmaril.ie]
| Sent: mardi 11 mars 2003 21:42
| To: tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org
|
| Bernard Vatant wrote:
| > The last version of Deliverable 1, revised by Steve, is on-line on
OASIS
| > server. Sorry for the long URL!
| [...]
| > Please send objections if any.
|
| None except what Bernard said:
|
| > I have one comment/suggestion: Should not "Recommendation 6" ...
| >
| > "A Published Subject Indicator should explicitly state its Published
| > Subject Identifier."
| >
| > become "Requirement 4" ...
| >
| > "A Published Subject Indicator must explicitly state its Published
| > Subject Identifier."
| >
| > Or better, be integrated into Requirement 3, in the following way:
| >
| > "A Published Subject Indicator must have exactly one Published
Subject
| > Identifier, and explicitly state it."
|
| "Must" if it's a requirement; "should"/"may" if it's a recommendation.
|
| ///Peter
|
|
|
| ----------------------------------------------------------------
| To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
| manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
Suellen Stringer-Hye
Jean and Alexander Heard Library
Vanderbilt University
stringers@library.vanderbilt.edu
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]