Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] ISSUE 4 - Relationships between subjects

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

* Bernard (in issues.htm)
| 
| -- Do the relationships between subjects, e.g. class/subclass,
| belong to each PSI?

Here we're again swimming in soup, because we're so far ahead of
ourselves that we don't know what it is we are discussing. What is a
PSI? 

Don't you really mean to say:

  "do class-instance and class-subclass statements belong in the core
  metadata about published subjects, should they be in additional
  metadata, or should they no be asserted at all?"

  "do general relationship statements belong in the core metadata
  about published subjects, should they be in additional metadata, or
  should they no be asserted at all?"

In any case, I feel that this is way too early to discuss. It depends
on the appropriate structure of PS Doc sets, and therefore we should
try to get some clarity on that before we move on.

Does the PS Doc set contain only formal metadata? Does it contain a
human-readable description + formal metadata? Can the formal metadata
be broken up into several parts? And so on. Once we know this we can
return to this issue, rephrase it much more clearly, and settle it in
a way that it is much less likely that we will have to revisit later
on. 

| -- Or should they be declared outside individual PSIs, in the
| general PS Doc structure?

Again, what does this mean? We don't know yet. It seems to be related
to what I am saying above, but it's difficult to tell.

| -- Should they be declared at all?

Ditto.

| Proposal:
| 
| When relationships with other subjects are inherent to the
| definition of a subject (ex: taxonomy, thesaurus) they should
| be declared inside each individual Subject Indicator.

What is "the definition of a subject"? It seems to me that there's a
need for a term that identifies the notion your trying to get across
here, and that we should define it before moving on.

* Steve Pepper
| 
| It seems to me that this is really only a problem when PSI
| sets are being published in some machine processable knowledge
| representation like topic maps (or RDF).

Yes, and we don't yet know what we think about that, nor do we have
any precise terms for discussing those issues.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >