RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Good PSIs never die

["Karl F. Best" <karl.best@oasis-open.org>]

> Kal cannot post to this list. He has interesting contributions.
> Isn't tm-pubsubj-comment public?

He should subscribe first. Then he can post.

</karl>
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
+1 978.667.5115 x206
karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Bandholtz, Thomas [mailto:thomas.bandholtz@koeln.sema.slb.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:35 AM
To: 'tm-pubsubj-comment@lists.oasis-open.org'
Cc: 'bernard.vatant@mondeca.com'
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


Thomas,

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

At 13:54 21/03/2002 +0100, you wrote:

[Kal:]
No one has yet said that the documentation would be XML ! But even so
which is more human readable:

<record>
<isbn>123456-09-23</isbn>
<auth-code>AHM1298</auth-code>
<pubdate>20011110</pubdate>
<stock-code>98993939385402</stock-code>
</record>

<book>
<book-title>XML Meta Data</book-title>
<authors>
  <author>Kal Ahmed</author>
  <author>Danny Ayers</author>
   ...
</authors>
<published>2001-11-10</published>
<description> -- blurb about the book goes here </description>
</book>

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.
[Thomas:]
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 ?

Cheers,

Kal