[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [topicmaps-comment] Subject Identifier: Was Good PSIs never die
Sam, Just emerging briefly before returning to bible schema work ;-). Sam Hunting wrote: >> >>[Lars Marius] >> >>>>We do need to be *really* clear on one thing: the subject >>>>indicator itself (the resource, the text, the thing humans read) >>>> >is > >>>>*only* for human documentation. It has no other purpose >>>> >whatsoever. > >>>>When machines do merging they use the URI (also known as the >>>> >subject > >>>>identifier, precisely for that reason). >>>> > <snip> > >There isn't anything here about a subject indicator being ONLY for >human documentation. (In fact, the above definitions definitely permit >the intent of the author to be expressed by a statement in a >machine-readable, controlled vocabulary.) So I'm confused. > >Is the OASIS PSI committee recommending the replacement of XTM 1.0 >semantics for subject identity with new semantics? > I think the distinction that Lars is drawing is between something that is machine-readable (URI) versus the text I would consult to decide if a particular PSI is appropriate for my topic map. Some URI's might be obvious enough for humans to resolve as well but I can easily imagine a "subject identifier" (as text) that makes distinctions that are hard to capture in a a "subject identifier" (as URI). On a quick read, don't know that I see that as any different than how I have viewed PSIs in the past. Perhaps we need a change in how we speak about subject identifiers so we are not overloading the term? (I tend to know what I am thinking as opposed to what I am saying and that can lead to confusion. ;-) Patrick -- Patrick Durusau Director of Research and Development Society of Biblical Literature pdurusau@emory.edu
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC