RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] The Topic Map Domain [was: paradigmatic PSIs]

["Mason, James David (MXM) " <mxm@ornl.gov>]

In response to Mary's question about locations for PSIs or anything else:

ISO simply doesn't have any mechanism for doing it. They're horribly
decentralized (unlike the Empire of Tim) and can barely maintain a Web site
of their own headquarters organization. (And if ISO or any of its national
members did put up a Web site with real data on it, they'd probably want to
charge a subscription price.) (And my "underground" ISO site can't be
guaranteed long-term stability. If I drop out of standards work or retire,
it will go away.)

I'd go with OASIS, though some people have told me they're not the most
reliable for keeping live data.

Jim Mason

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mary Nishikawa [SMTP:nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com]
> Sent:	Sunday, April 07, 2002 8:48 PM
> To:	Murray Altheim; Bernard Vatant
> Cc:	Steven R. Newcomb; Eric Miller; tm-pubsubj-comment;
> shunting@etopicality.com; Michel Biezunski; jan; masonjd@ornl.gov;
> nogievet@cogx.com
> Subject:	Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] The Topic Map Domain [was:
> paradigmatic PSIs]
> 
> 
> >
> >>*Steve
> >>
> >>>>The isotopicmaps.org domain seems ideal for this purpose.
> 
> 
> >>*Eric
> >>>hmm... this is something i don't understand.  It seems more cost
> effective
> >>>(from both the societal trust and maintenance standpoint) to help
> >>>organizations establish persistent policies and procedures for making
> >>>available these PSI's on their respective sites. no?
> 
> 
> *Bernard
> >>You're right generally speaking, for any specific legacy of subjects 
> >>(e.g. Countries or LC
> >>Subject Headings ...). But I think Steve was there speaking about very 
> >>generic
> >>(paradigmatic) PSIs, e.g. for "topic" "association" "occurrence" ... the
> 
> >>ones that are
> >>used by the standard itself. It makes sense that those be defined in
> some 
> >>authoritative
> >>and unique space linked to the standard. Although "heretic" PSI for
> those 
> >>same concepts
> >>could be available elsewhere :))
> >
> >*Murray
> >I'm unclear on the benefit of splitting the XTM domain into multiple
> >names. We've got
> >
> >    http://www.topicmaps.org/
> >
> >and
> >
> >    -//TopicMaps.Org//
> >
> >as the domain for XTM. If we're still talking about topic maps
> >on-the-web, then I see little reason for something called
> >isotopicmaps.org unless it happens to be a domain that the ISO
> >TC controls. This would assume that the "controllers" of the
> >existing topicmaps.org domain aren't willing to work intimately
> >with the ISO TC, a position I would find hard to fathom. The
> >amount of overlap in terms of people between these two groups,
> >their mutual interest, and the amount of existing, developed
> >technology would suggest that we keep everything under one
> >domain umbrella. There need be no suspicions or worry that the
> >existing domain be a renegade one, and if that were to happen
> >then certainly a new domain could be created at that time. I
> >don't see that the existing domain cannot serve other topic
> >map serializations than just XTM.
> >
> >I think it really folly to create yet one more topic map domain
> >for the PSIs that are intrinsically part of both the ISO and
> >XTM ventures (esp. since they are to be merged anyway as the ISO
> >committee proceeds in its work). We've also already got a set of
> >PSIs for the most fundamental topic map concepts in the topicmaps.org
> >domain. Are these now or soon to be illegitimate?
> 
> * Mary
> We really do need to have one domain and have the organization who is 
> responsible for the domain clearly stated, otherwise, it is hard to get 
> things moving. ISO does not have an "official" domain for the location of 
> DTDs  as W3C does. Is this correct?
> 
> Would this need to be proposed? Is it possible?  It would be nice if we 
> could still use TopicMaps.org for ISO DTDs and other core PSIs. If this is
> 
> not possible, then maybe isotopicmaps.org is the way  to go.
> 
> We really do need place for a general purpose "pubsubj.xtm"  (Steve 
> Pepper's proposal) in an official place once it has been discussed and the
> 
> contents decided on.
> 
> I think initially Steve used http://psi.oasis-open.org, for the general
> use 
> PSIs in the map, and now he is using http://psi.topicmaps.org/
> 
> Some of the contents within have Ontopia specific content. It's actual 
> location is
> 
> http://psi.ontopia.net/ontopia/pubsubj.xtm
> 
> Let's say I wanted to use the generalised PSIs that Steve defined in my
> own 
> topic map. It would be nice to have them in one stable place.
> 
> -- Mary
> 
> **************************************
> Mary Nishikawa,  EDMS Technical Advisor
> Schlumberger K. K.
> 2-2-1 Fuchinobe
> Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229-0006
> Tel:  +81-42-759-5376
> Fax: +81-42-759-3563
> 
> XML Network SchlumbergerSema
> ISO JTC1/SC34, Japan
> OASIS TM Pubsubj TC, GeoLang TC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>