[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [xtm-wg] Initial feedback on draft (a duplicate)
Apologies for any duplicate sendings -- I may have run afoul of the egroups-yahoo transition Steve/Graham/AG: It reads well! Good job. There are substantive (I hope) comments intermixed with copy edits. The substantive issues are marked with "**" and remarks are put in square brackets []. Many of these are "consensus" issues. Note that many of my substantive comments are directed to what I regard as nice-sounding but extremely bold, even wild, claims about ontologies, semantics, and the like. I strongly believe that there is no consensus for these claims in the AG. S. status of this document ----------------------- a. "... is in an Authoring Group Review phase ..." If so, then should not the title still read "TopicMaps.Org AG Review Specification", not "Draft Specification"? b. "From that date until February 3rd, 2001" sounds like review is cut off on the 3rd. This does not reflect dates agreed on in Paris: "The editor is instructed to produce an AG review XTM 1.0 specification based on the Feb 3rd 2001 draft specification. The deadline for this document is Feb 10th. Ratification by the participating members will close on Feb 17th." The text should reflect the minutes. Origins ------- a. "chaired at the date of delivery of this specification" The minutes read: "Steve Pepper delegates chair duties to Eric Freese" Should/need the text reflect this? Terminology ---------- a. addressable information resource An information resource whose identity is computable. (That is, a computer system can retrieve the resource and make deterministic comparisons between it, and some other resource, to establish their identity or difference.) An example of an addressable information resource is the online version of the document you are now reading. Replace: of the document you are now reading. with this document. b. reification Delete within the terms of the topic map paradigm Replace within a topic map. [Don't know what it means to "discourse within a paradigm." KISS] c. topic map node seems pointless to have nodes, but no graph. Delete? 2. Concepts ----------- a. Concur with Bernard on unusefulness of "real[-| ]world" here b. Concur with Bernard on *resources*. c. "The assigment of such characteristics is said to be valid within a certain scope, or context." Delete: , or context "... at the time of its creation." Append: Topic map authors may provide additional information to facilitate merging. d. "gentle introduction" Delete throughout (titles and TOC): A gentle replace [A|a]n 2.1 A Gentle Introduction... -------------------------- a. Well, if we MUST use reifies, let's work it in! para starting "Because not all subjects" Delete every topic acts as a surrogate for some subject Replace every topic acts as a surrogate for (or *reifies*) some subject b. para starting "It is often useful in" Delete guide the compiler Replace guide the author or indexer c. para starting "It is often useful in" Delete representation of relations among subjects Replace representation of relationships among subjects [no confusion with relation as in relational DB] d. para starting "because associations express" Disagree with Bernard regarding "real-world" here. e. para starting "There is no" Note that if the DTD is changed to allow no topics as members (IMHO wrongly) the final sentence will have to be reworked. f. para starting "Becuase topics" Delete topics and their relations Replace topics and their relationships g. para starting "We use the word topic map to denote" delete such objects replace such things 2.2 Overview of topic map constructs ------------------------------------ a. para starting "this section" Delete "more logical" Replace "logical rather than alphabetical" b. para starting "In order to discourse" Replace: "In order to discourse on a subject within a topic map, that subject must be reified through the creation of a topic. Subjects are thus the organizing principles of topics." [Don't know what it means to "discourse within a paradigm." KISS] c. para starting "In a consistent topic map" "each subject will ideally" This does not conform to the definition in terminology, which lacks "ideally". Since the ideal is only achievable with the intervention of humans or at least intelligent agents (who are after all the ultimate judges) this is a big issue. Suggest adding "ideal" to terminology. "preferably" in same para embodies same issue. d. para starting "Most subjects" Delete their identity is Replace their identities are e. para starting "However anything" Delete However anything Replace However, anything Delete considered as an HTML document in the file system. Replace considered as an HTML document. [internet not equal "the" file system] 2.2.1.2 Reification ------------------- a. para 1: duplicates terminology, see comment there. b. para starting "the notion of reification." Delete in toto. [There's nothing concrete here. I don't know what to do with "at the very heart", "say anything", '"real"' (does it mean processable?), or "come as close as a machine can".] c. paragraph starting "since anything" Delete themselves, ... assertions. Replace themselves. [Without some formal idea of what an "assertion" is, and whether topic maps do anything more, for example, than "assert links", which they do via xlink, there's nothing concrete here.] 2.2.1.3 Subject identity a. para starting "subject identity" ** Delete -- in effect, to interchange their semantics -- [This bold statement can neither be proved nor disproved. It is, therefore, content-free and can be deleted without loss.] 2.2.1.4 a. para starting "A subject indicator" ** Delete and interchanging semantics [This bold statement can neither be proved nor disproved. It is, therefore, content-free and can be deleted without loss.] b. para starting "since subject identity" ** delete through the use of standardized ontologies expressed as published subject indicators replace through published subject indicators" [original statment implies that the ontology method is the only way to express a PSI. Surely this is to be proved rather than asserted? Let's KISS.] c. para starting "since once and the same" ** Delete Situations like this ... ontologies. Replace For example, given two topics, where one has "Buster Keaton" as a basename topic characteristic, the other has "The Great Stone Face" as a basename topic characteristic, and neither has a subject indicator resource, a subject mattter expert on Hollywood stars might conclude that both topics have the same subject -- the silent comedian named "Buster Keaton" -- and intervene in XTM processing to cause these two topics to be merged. [There is no reason to focus on mediating ontologies here, or to recommend a particular method. Further, that the human is the ultimate judge of subjects to be merged is omitted from the current draft. 2.2.1.5 Topic characteristic a. para starting "anything that may be" Delete Anything ... Characteristics Replace Topic characteristics b. para starting "The assignment ..." Delete scope, or context. Replace scope. [What could the extra word for scope add except confusion?] 2.2.16 Scope a. para starting "the concept of scope" Delete The concept of scope is used to express the extent Replace Scope specifies the extent [Implies concept itself somehow actuates the computer!] Delete In other words, it Replace It Delete , whatever the processing context. Replace . 2.2.2 Name a. para starting "Each name may exist" Delete It always Replace A name always 2.2.2.1 Base name a. para starting "A base name" QUERY: Do we want to specify a length for the string? The minimum basename string length that is required to be supported by all conforming XTM applications is 255 characters. This XTM 1.0 Specification does not impose a maximum basename string length limit. 2.2.3 Occurrence a. para starting "the latter" ** Replace: The latter [resourceData] provides (among other things) a useful way of assigning metadata to topics With: The latter provides a syntactically convenient means of labelling. It should never be used for any other purpose, for example, metadata, as that would defeat reliable interchange of topic maps. [There is no consensus on this statement in the draft at all.] Putting a whole metadata structure into resource data completely subverts the entire paradigm. ResourceData is there only as a syntactic convenience for doing a label. That's why its only in variant name and occurrence!] 2.2.4 Association a. para starting "there is no" Define "directionality." Is it like hyperlink traversal? 2.2.5 Topic Map a. para starting "a topic map" ** [Still seems strange to have "nodes" without "graph". Where else could nodes exist except in a graph?? Even Joe Markup knows that -- unless he knows that nodes exist in a DOM tree, which is completely deceptive.] b. para starting "1. a serialised" ** delete or some other syntax [There's no consensus that XTM is going to express any other syntax than XML. See the charter: "Develop, publish, maintain, and promote a specification, known as XML Topic Maps (XTM), for the expression of topic maps in XML." Nor, in the absence of a formal processing model, do I see a way forward to doing so.] INSERT 2.2.5.2 and thenceforward renumber 2.2.5.2 Topic Map Graph a. A topic map graph consists of nodes and arcs. The nodes are the endpoints of the arcs. ** [To me, it is senseless to have nodes that have no plane of existence, and are not connected together in any way. Therefore, I have tried to provide a vanilla, non-controversial, non-application specific definition of a topic map graph. 2.2.5.2 Consistent topic map a. para starting "A consistent" Delete suppression as defined Replace suppression, as defined [You want Annex F to apply to the whole para, don't you? Not just "further opportunities] 2.2.5.3 Topic Map Document a. para starting "a topic map document" Delete a syntax governed by this or some other specification Replace the XML syntax defined by this specification. [There is no consensus on the wording as written.] 2.2.5.4 XTM document a. para starting "An XTM document" Delete the syntax Replace the XML syntax [There is no consensus on the wording as written.] 2.3 Published subjects a. para starting "A published subject" "online via a URI" **QUERY: URN? QUERY: Does accessible online rule out the use of a file system? Say by an intranet or by a developer? ===== <!-- "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life." - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations --> __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~> eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/981140254/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC