[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] ISSUE 0 - Generalisation of scope
> > Generalisation of Published Subjects scope to "subject-oriented applications" ? *Steve Pepper > 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. Agreed > 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. Agreed again - that balance point we have not found yet. > 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'm not happy with the term either. That's why I've always written it "between quotes". > 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. > (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...) Hmmm. I don't think we have really a new concept here, so would prefer to stick to existing terminology - see below. > (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've wondered for a while if "subject-oriented" does not mean simply "semantic"? -- It's short and snappy, but OTOH not very precise, although ... are not semantic technologies those which rely on non-ambiguous identification of terms meaning? -- It declares clearly that our work belongs to the scope of the general Semantic Web technologies. Do we agree on that? Hot stuff !! Bernard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC