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: [tm-pubsubj-comment] ISSUE 0 - Generalisation of scope


Bernard wrote (in 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/issues.htm):

>Generalisation of Published Subjects scope to
>"subject-oriented applications" ?
>
>...
>
>Remarks:
>
>The above generalizations are interesting in the long run, but
>seem currently to extend in too ill-defined territories.
>
>Proposal:
>-- Keep the scope strictly to topic map applications in first
>deliverable
>-- Include the above suggestions in some Annex to the third
>deliverable "Use of Published Subjects"

We want PSIs to be as widely used as possible, also outside the
domain of topic maps. We should therefore strive to make the
recommendations as general as possible. We don't want people to
reject the PSI approach just because they aren't into topic maps.

On the other hand, topic maps are where the concept of PSIs came
from; they are the paradigm that is currently best able take
advantage of PSIs and also the one most likely to embrace PSIs
first. (I would also like to ensure that any interest generated
by the concept of PSIs also serves to promote the topic map
paradigm.)

Therefore we need to find exactly the right balance between
("subject-oriented application") generality and (topic map)
specificity.

In general, I like the concept of "subject-oriented
applications", but I hate the name. It will never catch on! If
we could come up with something better, I would support starting
out with the more general approach and narrowing it where
necessary.

I've racked my brains for a suitable name but cannot come up
with anything that is both short-and-snappy and also
sufficiently precise. I therefore see two alternatives:

   (1) Invent a new name and use it until it becomes second
   nature. This is risky, but if we can gain acceptance for the
   name the advantages will be enormous. (I might start a thread
   for brainstorming such a name...)

   (2) Provide a clear explanation of the concept of
   "subject-oriented application" up front and then state that we
   will use the term "application" (or "Application") throughout
   the document to denote that concept.

My proposal is that with start with alternative (2) and try to
rephrase the Gentle Introduction in more general terms without
having to say "subject-oriented application" all the time. If
having done that we feel that topic maps have disappeared too
much from view, we look for ways of making them more prominent.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246



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


Powered by eList eXpress LLC