RE: [tm-pubsubj] Subject identification and ontological commitment : areal-world example

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

Suellen

> 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)

Not exactly. We have agreed that each PSI should identify a single subject.
The other way round is politically undesirable, and fortunately impossible
to achieve, both conceptually and technically.

> 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?

Yes. At least the properties expressed in this source that are
consubstantial (? don't know if that word works in english) with the
definition of the subject. That is the one you can't get rid of without
really loosing sense.

> 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.

Yes. Exactly the point. And it's the same in any vertical industry or
distributed enterprise.

> But then I may have missed the point entirely:>)

No, no. You got it :)

Bernard