[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [tm-pubsubj] Re: Vocabulary - details (Re: Deliverable 1 review ...)
Lars Marius I think we are coming close to clarification on several points. The better now I think is indeed for me to try and sum it up and post it on the TC Web as a first part of draft deliverable 1. One precision anyway, about "subject indicator" and "subject definition document". For the rest, I basically surrender, including your view of published subject documentation. I think definitely we should keep the two terms, the first one to be used as it is in the XTM terminology, relevant from the topic map authoring viewpoint, and the second one to be used from the publisher's viewpoint. I would not even take the risk to say that the latter is a subclass of the former, because they somehow belong to orthogonal ontologies. Example 1. I create a topic map with a topic "Lars Marius Garshol", and use as "subject indicator" your home page at http://www.garshol.priv.no/ ... because I don't know of any other published subject documentation about you. Of course, that is not a best recommended practice, because I take the risk of this subject indicator to be unstable, even if I have some confidence in its stability. But I have no better choice. Remark that the classification of this resource as "subject indicator" is not an *essential* one, it comes from the fact I use it as such. It is a classification inherited of a role, like "publisher" (you're not a publisher until you publish something) 2. I assume you are the publisher of the quoted resource (because you would not let anybody else do it anyway). Suppose you decide to make it stable and declare that is is intended to stay there, and be used by authors wanting to indicate your identity in their topic maps, and make it conform to PubSubj recommendations. It becomes therefore a "subject definition document". You see that process 1. and process 2. are completely independent. In fact "subject indicator" and "subject definition document" are for that resource class like different names in different scopes ... The distinction in terminology would be useful e.g. to express best practices for topic maps authors, like: "It is recommended that topic map authors use subject definition documents as subject indicators, whenever possible." Bottom line. Remember your basic maths, when you want to prove that two objects are equal, although they are defined in different ways. Begin by calling the first one A, and the second one B, and then try to prove that A=B. A common mistake of newbies is to start by naming both X, killing all possibility of reasoning ... Bernard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC