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

[Murray Altheim <m.altheim@open.ac.uk>]

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