OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tm-pubsubj-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: FW: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Good PSIs never die

Kal cannot post to this list. He has interesting contributions. Isn't tm-pubsubj-comment public?
-----Original Message-----
From: Kal Ahmed [mailto:kal@techquila.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:10 PM
To: Bandholtz, Thomas
Subject: RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Good PSIs never die


My last email was bounced by the list as well... :-(

At 13:54 21/03/2002 +0100, you wrote:
No one has yet said that the documentation would be XML ! But even so which is more human readable:


<book-title>XML Meta Data</book-title>
  <author>Kal Ahmed</author>
  <author>Danny Ayers</author>
<description> -- blurb about the book goes here </description>

I would suggest that XML of the first form is "machine-readable" and XML of the second form is "human-readable". But depending upon the system(s) involved, the first form might be the only form that can be automatically generated for the subject indicator.


We have been talking about XTM, RDF, XHTML, customized XML so far - all this is XML. But you may be right - needs not to be XML. But I think it should not be binary encoded.

If this became a limitation for a PSI, it would restrict PSIs to being a much smaller subset of all subject indicators. The ISO and XTM specifications do not specify a format for a subject indicator. I guess it would be a shame if that flexibility had to be sacrificed for PSIs.

Readability only depends on the specific intelligence implemented in the machine/human.

If I (human, hopefully) understand the encoding of <auth-code> etc., I can read it.
If a machine doesn't, it cannot read it neither.

This is true within the definition of "readable". But should a PSI resource be "readable" or "understandable". If it is the latter, should that "understandability" be dependent on other knowledge external to the resource itself ? In limited circumstances (e.g. intranet or extranet environments) it could be argued that all users of the PSI would know what auth-code indictaed (esp. if using a documented schema). But in generalised internet solutions, surely a subject indicator that relies on knowledge of yet another schema would be flawed ?



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC