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] formal syntax


> To be short:
> As far as I can see, every successful standard owns one (1) formal syntax.
> See DTD, Schema, SOAP, XSL, whatsoever.

Agreed so far

> I think we should concentrate on developing *one final* syntax for topic maps ...

Might be, although I feel more happy with XTM 1.0 that many people seem to be, and in fact
the more I use it, the more I like it.

> ... and we should also use it for PSI, as PS are topics.

No we should not, because they are not. That is the point we can't agree upon obviously.
Subjects are subjects, and topics are representations of subjects. And topic maps have to
be plugged one way to information resource layers via occurrences and one way to
non-addressable subject layers - ontologies, vocabulary, thesaurus, classifications - via
subject indicators.
Looking closely, those two layers are not that much different from each other, and at
least they share the common characteristic to be managed outside the topic maps, and I
repeat it's unsustainable to ask publishers to reduce their subject definition and
description to a single syntax and format, the same way you can't ask authors to use the
same DTD for all their documents.

Well ... I'm definitely feeling like we are speaking past each other here. Hope we'll get
to something more constructive F2F in Barcelona next week ...


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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC