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: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Fwd : On "prohibition" of XTM and URNs


I forward to the TC list your comments, with my views on them.

> [Bernard, minor rant ... permission to repost granted if desired]

Reposting done with your permission :)

> ... not my place to complain really (since I've removed myself
> from the TC) but I don't like the direction the TC is taking away
> from using XTM. While XHTML may be suitable as documentation for
> a PSI set, if RDF is considered so, then certainly XTM could be.

XTM is not ruled out completely, it is only in the first deliverable.

The argument for that is two-fold, given that the first deliverable is to be made as
simple as possible.

1. Political/Technical : Make very clear that Published Subjects are not tied to Topic
Maps and XTM
2. Pedagogical: XTM example is not easy to grab at first sight.

I think we'll keep XTM metadata example in the second deliverable.
Maybe we should say so in the first deliverable.

> And I think it incorrect to prohibit URNs. Within very specific
> scopes of endeavour they are entirely appropriate. For example,
> let's say some part of the medical community decides to publish
> a thousand PSIs as URNs, simply by adding the URN for each to an
> existing paper publication, with a cross reference by URN in an
> appendix. Proscribing URNs won't make those who might use them
> stop doing so, and resolution is *alway* reliant on a community
> of users having access to whatever resolution services are
> available.

I agree. But I don't think we have said that URNs are prohibited completely. You make the
same sensible point as I think Nikita made in  Montréal meeting. As long as a resolution
service is provided, there is no reason not to use URNs.

> If for example a closed community (like .NET) publish
> a set of PSIs as URLs (perfectly legal according to the current
> plan) but restrict access to only those people with Passport,
> then it's the same as the medical community using URNs.

Exactly. It figures BTW that we have to stress maybe more that "Published" does not
necessarily mean "Public". The PSI mechanism can be and will used in closed universes
(community of users with restricted access, corporate or research center intranet ...) as
well as on the open Web. And in fact those closed universes will probably be the early
adopters of PSIs (as they are currently for Topic Maps technology)

> I can understand why one might want to restrict URNs, but I think
> it better to simply admonish people about resolution and the
> limits of use of URNs rather than kill their use. It's in things
> like PSIs that URNs would really shine, ie., its one place where
> their definition is most appropriate, and URLs least.

I think the TC position agrees basically with that. The requirement #2 is that resolution
is required, that's it.  Maybe the minutes wording is too compact and misleading. But the
recommendation itself will hopefully be more explicit. I'll try to make it so anyway :))

> sorry to miss you all in Montreal... *sigh*

We are all looking forward to seeing you back, I think - at least I am ;-)


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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC