OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tm-pubsubj-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Tuesday conference



I ask a lot of questions in this email, basically because I am not
sure what you mean. I'd like to avoid giving my opinions until I have
a better idea of what you mean.

* Thomas Bandholtz
| 
| Actualy now I have four statements:
| 
| 1 use Topic Maps for PSI sets

As it looks now the PubSubj recommendations will both allow and
support that, but not require it, and perhaps not even recommend it. 

Do you think that is a problem?
 
| 2 support both retrievable URL ("retrieval bookmarks") and URN
| ("unique names only")
| [...]
| 4 allow diversity of data sources media across files, databases, or
| whatsoever

I certainly agree with both of these, though I guess we may disagree
on what is actually needed in order to support them.
 
| 1 use Topic Maps for PSI sets
| =============================
| [...]
| See the difference of saying "a topic map" from saying "XTM" ?

Yes, but I don't see what you mean. What syntax is it you would like
to see? That is, could you be more precise?
 
| 2 support both retrievable URL ("retrieval bookmarks") and URN
| ("unique names only")
| =========================================================================
| [...]
| No doubt: A retrievable topic map fragment in this place is best!

Why? That is, what would that fragment be used for?

| However, something like ISBN:0201175355 is a working published
| subject without having any URL at all.

I agree. The ISBN URN scheme is such that people can use it for
subject identifiers right now, without any help from us at all.
That doesn't help much for all the subjects out there that *don't*
have a URN scheme yet, though. :)
 
| 3 integrate human and machine readability in one source
| =======================================================
| 
| XML was intended to be both. Though I would consider myself to be a
| machine-head i see it as a question of professional ambition to make
| everything as human readable as possible. On the other hand,
| doc-heads should not be too comfortable. TM need not to be fairy
| tales.

Thomas, here I really don't follow you. What is it you mean?
 
| 4 allow diversity of data sources media across files, databases, or
| whatsoever.

I agree we should do this, but what, in all that we've done so far, is
it that really poses a threat to this in any way? I really don't
understand what your concern is.

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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC