[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] ISSUE 0 - Generalisation of scope
Steve Pepper wrote: [...] > 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. There's always a number of dangers one runs into when generalizing, and I probably don't need to enumerate them here. Since (as you say in your second paragraph) we can be fairly assured of acceptance and relevance by sticking within the domain of topic maps, I would recommend against trying to come up with new terminology and simply define PSIs in the domain of topic maps, and *then* in some section or appendix explain how they can be used more generally, describing perhaps some examples. Maybe in some other documentation one could describe in more detail these other applications. Think about the common things you use everyday (such as the telephone) and think back to how and why they were invented. The best inventions were usually created within a narrow domain, for a limited audience. If the idea is good it will likely catch on without any further assistance. For counter examples, look at RDF. Despite the continual prodding and promotion of its designers, it still has only a religion-only acceptance. Then you have examples of things which were abstracted to the point where nobody saw the application. PSIs are a good enough and necessary enough idea to succeed without either. We just need a simple, solid, and stable definition for their creation, publication, and use. Basically, with PSIs we've got useful URNs. We've needed URNs for years, since we need to name things. The confusion fomented by the W3C in this regard hasn't helped matters. Murray ...................................................................... Murray Altheim <http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/> Knowledge Media Institute The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC