[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tm-pubsubj] Subject identification and ontological commitment : areal-world example
Before I can weigh in on this problem, I'd like to understand what the issue is. 1) We are already agreed (pretty much I think) that each subject has a unique identifier with two faces, one for computer, one for humans (with overlap between the two) 2) Bernard would like to see there also be a way for this PSI to express the ontology, thesaurus, world from which it came. Is that correct? I DO think these issues are important, as Bernard has mentioned. Keeping these things useful is EXTREMELY difficult in even the controlled world of libraries where there are only a few number of ontologies from which people are drawing for subject analysis. But then I may have missed the point entirely:>) ---Suellen --On Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:19 PM +0100 Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote: > > Mary > > Was your message intended to be private or to the list? My answer > is public :) > >> > Why? The dissidents could publish their own set of PSIs making >> > clear that they disagree with ISO PSIs (in OWL, they could >> > assert that > using >> > owl:incompatibleWith). And up to the users to choose their >> > authority. But if applications use ISO PSIs, then let them be > conformant to what ISO >> > asserts. >> >> This is still not in the committee's scope. You think it in our >> scope to say whether we are or are not Pubsubj policemen or >> women, and describe that? :) > > That is not a question of anybody, *us* or *them* making the > police. We are about recommended practices, that we think could > avoid any semantic web (of any kind or size, private or public, > local or global) to become a semantic mess. People consider too > much that there should be exactly one PSI by subject in the > universe. This is clearly unsustainable. There will be a lot of > PSIs published by various authorities for similar subjects, that > some (publishers or users) may consider identical or not. My > choice of such or such PSI (see my example of country) should > depend on my commitment or not to the publisher's ontology. What > I say is: if you want the system to work correctly, there is a > kind of consensus, I would even say trust contract, to be > established between the publisher and the users, in order for the > PSIs to be used consistently by everyone. And we should indeed > recommend that if you don't agree on the properties given by the > publisher in this subject indicator, don't use his/her PSIs. > Certainly you don't speak about the same thing. This is not > making police. It's simply saying: if you don't follow this rule, > you will trigger a semantic mess, because people and systems will > believe you agree on this subject, though you are not. > >> > > We are only providing a standard to represent the >> > > information in a computer. >> > >> > I disagree. The TC charter mentions explicitly that we'll >> > deliver recommendations for *definition, management and use*. >> > I have >> proposed last >> > year to review the charter, but everybody seemed to be happy >> > with the original one. So management and process of use is not >> > out of our scope. I >> > would say that to-be adopters certainly wait mainly for that >> > before jumping in the wagon. >> >> This is in the context of OASIS (electronic commerce) and this >> is what I meant. >> I think we are interpreting the charter differently. >> *definition, management and use* is always in the scope of >> information systems. I really do not understand you here. > > I see pretty well that we disagree on the interpretation of the > charter. I believe I always had in mind *mainly* the human and > social aspects of the three objectives : definition, management > and use. Maybe I would agree the scope is information systems, if > an information system includes its human users. Otherwise it does > not make sense to me. What will users be able to achieve with the > PSI toolkit? What will they be interested in? Gather piles of > contradictory statements about what they believe (maybe misled) > to be the same subject? or build consistent, effective systems > based on clear agreement on ontology, identifiers and > identification process (like isbn.nu example)? The former is an > interesting academic exercise, but the latter is really what we > are about and what is the demand now, everywhere. > > So we can't be agnostic about human process, ontological > commitment, community of users, and the like. We are at a core of > a very difficult problem in which the ratio human/technical is > certainly over 80/20. > > Bernard > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the > roster of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis- open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tm-pubsubj/members/l > eave_workgroup.php. > 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]