Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] The Topic Map Domain [was: paradigmatic PSIs]

[Mary Nishikawa <nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>]

>
>>*Steve
>>
>>>>The isotopicmaps.org domain seems ideal for this purpose.


>>*Eric
>>>hmm... this is something i don't understand.  It seems more cost effective
>>>(from both the societal trust and maintenance standpoint) to help
>>>organizations establish persistent policies and procedures for making
>>>available these PSI's on their respective sites. no?


*Bernard
>>You're right generally speaking, for any specific legacy of subjects 
>>(e.g. Countries or LC
>>Subject Headings ...). But I think Steve was there speaking about very 
>>generic
>>(paradigmatic) PSIs, e.g. for "topic" "association" "occurrence" ... the 
>>ones that are
>>used by the standard itself. It makes sense that those be defined in some 
>>authoritative
>>and unique space linked to the standard. Although "heretic" PSI for those 
>>same concepts
>>could be available elsewhere :))
>
>*Murray
>I'm unclear on the benefit of splitting the XTM domain into multiple
>names. We've got
>
>    http://www.topicmaps.org/
>
>and
>
>    -//TopicMaps.Org//
>
>as the domain for XTM. If we're still talking about topic maps
>on-the-web, then I see little reason for something called
>isotopicmaps.org unless it happens to be a domain that the ISO
>TC controls. This would assume that the "controllers" of the
>existing topicmaps.org domain aren't willing to work intimately
>with the ISO TC, a position I would find hard to fathom. The
>amount of overlap in terms of people between these two groups,
>their mutual interest, and the amount of existing, developed
>technology would suggest that we keep everything under one
>domain umbrella. There need be no suspicions or worry that the
>existing domain be a renegade one, and if that were to happen
>then certainly a new domain could be created at that time. I
>don't see that the existing domain cannot serve other topic
>map serializations than just XTM.
>
>I think it really folly to create yet one more topic map domain
>for the PSIs that are intrinsically part of both the ISO and
>XTM ventures (esp. since they are to be merged anyway as the ISO
>committee proceeds in its work). We've also already got a set of
>PSIs for the most fundamental topic map concepts in the topicmaps.org
>domain. Are these now or soon to be illegitimate?

* Mary
We really do need to have one domain and have the organization who is 
responsible for the domain clearly stated, otherwise, it is hard to get 
things moving. ISO does not have an "official" domain for the location of 
DTDs  as W3C does. Is this correct?

Would this need to be proposed? Is it possible?  It would be nice if we 
could still use TopicMaps.org for ISO DTDs and other core PSIs. If this is 
not possible, then maybe isotopicmaps.org is the way  to go.

We really do need place for a general purpose "pubsubj.xtm"  (Steve 
Pepper's proposal) in an official place once it has been discussed and the 
contents decided on.

I think initially Steve used http://psi.oasis-open.org, for the general use 
PSIs in the map, and now he is using http://psi.topicmaps.org/

Some of the contents within have Ontopia specific content. It's actual 
location is

http://psi.ontopia.net/ontopia/pubsubj.xtm

Let's say I wanted to use the generalised PSIs that Steve defined in my own 
topic map. It would be nice to have them in one stable place.

-- Mary

**************************************
Mary Nishikawa,  EDMS Technical Advisor
Schlumberger K. K.
2-2-1 Fuchinobe
Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-0006
Tel:  +81-42-759-5376
Fax: +81-42-759-3563

XML Network SchlumbergerSema
ISO JTC1/SC34, Japan
OASIS TM Pubsubj TC, GeoLang TC