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

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

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

I would like to point out that this is a requirements discussion.  We
should have settled this issue already, and documented the settlement
in our requirements document.
 
| In general, I like the concept of "subject-oriented applications",
| but I hate the name. It will never catch on!

I agree completely.

| If we could come up with something better, I would support starting
| out with the more general approach and narrowing it where necessary.

I'm not very happy with this idea. We're finding it difficult enough
to agree on how to correctly publish and maintain PSIs for topic maps,
and I think that broadening the scope to also cover other technologies
that none of us are very familiar with is not a very good idea.

Firstly, it will make an already difficult task harder. Secondly, it
will inevitably cause us to concentrate on the wrong issues. We need
to consider a large number of issues relating to PSIs in topic maps
and settle these carefully. If we broaden our scope we'll find
ourselves examining every proposal in detail and discussing ad nauseam
what consequences it might have for RDF and other technologies.

I would like us to move forward and consider only topic maps first.
Once we have a reasonably complete set of recommendations I would like
us to sit down and consider their implications for other SB technolgies.
That way we could separate the issues and tackle them one at a time in
a much cleaner way.

Note that I am *not* addressing the basic requirement here: that we
support more than just topic maps. I am making a statement about my
preferred process.

| 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.

Could that be because this isn't a very precise notion? :-)

Are we trying to define a term that covers all data models that are
organized around the princple of "things with identity, and statements
about them"? Or are we trying to define a term for "knowledge
technologies"? 
 
|    (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.

I think I prefer this for now. That would also help us find a good
name. 
 
-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >