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

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

(This probably sounds a bit terse. Apologies for that in advance; I
was writing in a hurry.)

* Murray Altheim
| 
|    <topicMap xmlns="http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0";
|              xml:base="http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/psi/";>
|       <topic id="tnode">
|          <subjectIdentity>
|            <subjectIndicatorRef xlink:href="urn:ceryle:graph:tnode"/>

Just a small nit: URN schemes which are not registered should have
names beginning with 'x-'. I'm guessing that yours is not
registered. :)

| Consider the communities who potentially might publish PSI sets:
| medicine, real estate, publishing, biology, law, etc. None of them
| likely to have much care for arcane syntaxes. KISS here.

Exactly, hence in part our preference for making the indicators
themselves HTML with optional metadata in XTM/RDF.
 
| I realize I have a completely different set of priorities than some,
| but if the topic map community doesn't have PSI publishing ability
| soon, there simply will never be the public sharing of topic maps
| within a reasonable amount of time, and people may move on to
| something else given no standards for participating.

Don't worry so much, Murray. We're getting there. There will be good
examples to look at very soon.
 
| I'd just like a PSI for "topic documentation." 

Make a web page that describes the subject and you're there.

| And a way to publish topic maps that I can point to as PSI sources.

What do you mean by "point to" and "as PSI sources"?

| [...] such that a simple scraper could pull the actual PSI
| definitions from the web page.

What is it you need to extract from the page? The users don't need
anything except the URIs (which they themselves must enter in any
case), so what is it that automated extraction will bring us?

| I'd certainly add that component to Ceryle if the syntax was
| standardized (ie., an "augmented-XHTML" to XTM tool).

Not a bad idea. We should consider something like that, methinks.
 
| I'm glad to see this is the case. I use URNs internal to Ceryle, and
| I'd hate to think I was breaking a rule there.

I think you are. You conform to the standard, but the published
subjects recommendation requires there to actually be a descriptive
resource to which the identifier must resolve. I doubt that's the case
with these subject identifiers. Or am I wrong?

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