[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [tm-pubsubj] Deliverable 1 review - requirements #2 and #3
In the process of drafting the first deliverable, a few things I think could be added to requirements #2 and #3. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/requirements_def.htm <#2> The TC SHALL clarify the nature of and relationships between the following concepts: -- subject (as defined in ISO 13250) -- published subject (as defined in ISO 13250) -- subject indicator (as defined in ISO 13250) -- published subject documentation (NOT defined in ISO 13250) -- subject definition document (NOT defined in ISO 13250) -- subject indicator reference (as defined in ISO 13250) </#2> I suggest to add to this list the two following -- publisher (as by Dublin Core definition for example) -- published subjects directory (since published subject documentations are more likely to come by flocks than single) So far, I come with the following glossary concerning those concepts: -- published subject (used by XTM 1.0 - definition refined) A published subject is a subject for which there exists at least one published subject documentation. -- published subject documentation (not defined in ISO 13250) A published subject documentation is a resource that is intended by its publisher to be used as a subject indicator. A published subject documentation includes at least a subject definition document and a subject indicator reference. -- published subjects directory (not defined in ISO 13250) A published subjects directory is a set of structured published subject documentations, managed in a consistent way by an unique publisher. -- publisher (as defined by Dublin Core elements) The publisher of a resource is an entity responsible for the content of the resource, and making it available. -- subject (as defined by ISO 13250) A subject is anything whatsoever, regardless of whether it exists or has any other specific characteristics, about which anything whatsoever may be asserted by any means whatsoever. -- subject definition document (not defined in ISO 13250) A subject definition document is a document that has been intended by its publisher to provide an indication of the nature of a subject. A subject definition document shall be usable both for human understanding and machine processing. Note : "usable for machine processing" is not in the requirements and may be controversial. See proposals for #3 below. -- subject indicator (as defined by ISO 13250) A subject indicator is a resource that can be used to directly or indirectly indicate the nature of a subject. -- subject indicator reference (as used by ISO 13250 XTM) A subject indicator reference is an URI that resolves to a subject indicator. <#3> The TC SHALL make recommendations for the syntactic form of the published subject documentation.</#3> It would be good to include there something about the semantic content too, meaning by that what type of information shall be found in a PSD: publisher identity, subject description, name, etc - basically the dc:elements we have been talking about. Therefore I propose to reword this requirement as follows <#3> The TC SHALL make recommendations for both syntactic form and semantic content of published subject documentations. </#3> My reflection for the syntactic form is currently along the following lines (subject to rewording): ------------------------------------------------------- Structure of published subject documentation and of published subjects directory. Considering that a considerable legacy of taxonomies, classifications, ontologies are likely to be used as published subjects directories, their publishers should not be constrained more than necessary to use a specific syntax or language. Therefore, the present recommendation does not aim to enforce upon publishers either an unique specific syntax for subject definition documents (e.g. DTD or Schema), or an unique structure for subject indicator references (e.g. specific namespace structure), but the minimal requirements for conformance to this recommendation are : 3.a - Consistency of subject definition document structure Throughout a published subjects directory, the subject definition documents shall be built following a consistent formal structure (DTD, schema or some equivalent structure definition), allowing an easy processing of their content by topic maps engines, search engines, intelligent agents and any foreseeable kind of semantic web application. 3.b - Consistency of subject indicator reference structure A published subjects directory shall use a consistent namespace and URI's structure for all its subject indicator references. 3.c - Formal declaration of subject definition document and subject indicator reference structures Both subject definition document and subject indicator reference structures used by a published subjects directory should be formally declared and available in the namespace of the directory. An Annex to the recommendation could propose various possible syntaxes for a subject definition document, namely XML DTD, XML Schema, RDF Schema, and XTM DTD. ------------------------------------------------------- To be continued Bernard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC