[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Comments on ontopia strawman - part 1
Mary I'm not sure you did not miss my point about self-reference. 1. Ontopia (the company out there in the real world) is a "non-addressable" subject. The PSI (meaning there and thereafter PS Indicator) itself is a resource, an "addressable"subject, therefore it can't be the same subject than the above, and can't be represented by the same topic. 2. A topic representing the subject Ontopia will point at the PSI for Ontopia through a <subjectIndicatorRef>. A topic representing the PSI will point at the PSI through a <resourceRef>, and that can be a self-reference or not, depending if this topic *is* the original PSI or only *represents* it, e.g. in another topic map. Not that since the syntax use absolute URIs, it could be exactly the same either in the original PSI Doc Set, or for any <topic> elements representing the same subjects anywhere else. So we'll have for a topic representing Ontopia, instance of company, a reference to the PSI using <subjectIndicatorRef> <topic id="ontopia"> <instanceOf> <subjectIndicatorRef xlink:href="#company"/> </instanceOf> <subjectIdentity> <subjectIndicatorRef xlink:href="http://psi.ontopia.net/ontopia/ontopia.xtm#psi-ontopia"/> </subjectIdentity> And for the topic representing or being the PSI, instance of PSI, a referencence (possibly self-reference) using <resourceRef> <topic id="psi-ontopia"> <instanceOf> <subjectIndicatorRef xlink:href="http://psi.oasis-open.org/pubsubj/psi.html"/> </instanceOf> <subjectIdentity> <resourceRef xlink:href="http://psi.ontopia.net/ontopia/ontopia.xtm#psi-ontopia"/> </subjectIdentity> </topic> This kind of distinction is possible, but is very difficult to understand and handle for anybody but topic maps veterans ;-) and will lead to logical and ontological mismatches and surprising merging if not handled correctly. It seems to me very risky to propose understandable and sustainable recommendations on that basis. That is, among other reasons, why I keep thinking that expressing PSI in XTM is confusing and not very sustainable. PSI belong to the meta-level of topic maps, and trying to express meta-level in the syntax of the level leads easily to paradoxes - like everybody should know since Russell and Gödel. That's why I'll propose that we stick to more simple formats, along XHTML and RDF lines. I wish I had the bandwidth to work on an example like you and Steve did, but I really could not those last weeks. Hope to have more constructive propositions in Seattle. Bernard ----- Message d'origine ----- De : "Mary Nishikawa" <nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com> Ŕ : "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>; "Steve Pepper" <pepper@ontopia.net>; <tm-pubsubj-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> Envoyé : lundi 4 mars 2002 07:16 Objet : Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Comments on ontopia strawman - part 1 > > >Steve: > > > I'm not sure how else we might differentiate PSI topics from non-PSI > > > topics. Creating a PSI for PSIs and making the PSI topics instances of > > > this type is not an alternative, because that would amount to saying > > > that, say, (the company) Ontopia is an instance of the class Published > > > Subject Indicator, which it obviously is not. > > Bernard: > >Nope. This is IMO clearly a topic type mismatch. The topic in the PSI > >DocSet should not > >represent Ontopia company itself, but the *PSI for Ontopia*, which is a > >different subject. > >And in fact you declare it somehow that way in your comment: > > > ><!-- This is the topic that is the subject indicator for Ontopia --> > > > >If we have a generic PSI for the class PSI, at e.g. > >http://psi.oasis-open.org/pubsubj/psi.html > > > >Therefore every topic used as psi could indeed be declared like > ><instanceOf> the above, > >providing you make clear that your topic represents the (addressable) > >subject *PSI for > >Ontopia*, not the (non-addressable) subject *Ontopia* itself. If the topic > >element > >represents the PSI, its subject is addressable, and the auto-reference - > >which I have no > >objection to - should therefore be asserted by a <resourceRef> element. > >Note that I > >changed the id wording to stress the point. > > > ><topic id="psi-ontopia"> > ><instanceOf> > ><subjectIndicatorRef xlink:href="http://psi.oasis-open.org/pubsubj/psi.html"/> > ></instanceOf> > ><subjectIdentity> > ><resourceRef > >xlink:href="http://psi.ontopia.net/ontopia/ontopia.xtm#ontopia" /> > ></subjectIdentity> > > ... > ></topic> > > The typing is a good idea and would help make the distinction. > > However if you are adding psi-ontopia, are you suggesting to include > additional topics besides ontopia, oks, omnigator, pepper by including > psi-ontopia, psi-oks, psi-omnigator, and psi-pepper, in the same map in > your example? Please correct me if I am wrong. > > I think that we lost the self-reference in your example above. Please > correct me if I am wrong. > > But I don't think that it is necessary to rename these or have "doubles" > one with psi and one without. > > From what I can see, when the subject identity is the topic itself, the > topic with the description (very much needed) is the subject. The subject > is the topic. > > In addition, instead of > > <resourceRef xlink:href="http://psi.ontopia.net/ontopia/ontopia.xtm#ontopia" /> > > (I would remove psi from psi.ontopia.net, I agree with you) and instead > use it in the filename to indicate that it is a psi set psi-ontopic.xtm -- > we do need some way to distinguish the psi maps versus non psi maps. - -) > > How about this? > <resourceRef > xlink:href="http://www.ontopia.net/ontopia/psi-ontopia.xtm#ontopia" /> > > > Now let's say we have another topic map WITH "IDENTICAL" TOPICS let's say > ontopia, oks, onmigator, pepper in file ontopia.xtm and the map will use > the subject identifiers that were already declared in psi-ontopia.xtm. > > These subject identifiers can then be used in any other map that we need > to establish subject identity (The psi of pepper in psi-ontopia.xtm is > only used for subject identity and is different from Ontopian Steve > Pepper in ontopia.xtm, and with subject identity we know that we have > Ontopian Steve Pepper.) > > In the ontopia.xtm file for example, we could have this: > > <topic id="ontopia"> > <instanceOf> > <subjectIndicatorRef xlink:href="#company"/> > </instanceOf> > <subjectIdentity> > <resourceRef > xlink:href="http://www.ontopia.net/ontopia/psi-ontopia.xtm#ontopia" /> > </subjectIdentity> > > and this > <topic id="pepper"> > <instanceOf> > <subjectIndicatorRef xlink:href="#person"/> > </instanceOf> > <subjectIdentity> > <resourceRef > xlink:href="http://www.ontopia.net/ontopia/psi-ontopia.xtm#pepper" /> > </subjectIdentity> > > I hope that this isn't too much, but I could see it work. > > These psi sets are the source for the subject identifier and indicators > that can be used in other maps. The psi TMs were not meant to be "merged" > with other maps. Is this the intention? > > > Cheers, > Mary > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC