[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] ISSUE 4 - Relation of subjects; PSD structure
*Lars Marius That's a possible point of view, but then, why not list PSD structure as an issue and start a thread on it? We can pursue that issue there and those who want to drag this issue into that discussion can do so. Anyway, you are chair, and effectively responsible for the process. If you say "we will take approach X" I'll be loyal and do my best to follow, but I want to make my opinion known before that happens, so you can make an informed decision. * Bernard | The class/subclass (or BT-NT) example is typical and important, | because most potential PS Docs will consist of, or contain some kind | of, classification, taxonomy, ontology ... thesaurus. *Lars Marius Absolutely. I think the issue is very important, but also premature. I have a few superclass-subclass relations defined as associations in my XTM TM. http://purl.org/mnishikawa/unspsc-core.xtm I needed to do this to have a realistic example, but I did not expect any description in our published subjects recommendations. This is really a modeling issue for TM. I was thinking that once the Pubsubj committee got the recommendations out, the GeoLang and XMLVoc would deal with this issue. -- Mary
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC