[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re:[tm-pubsubj] Vocabulary: will we get rid of "PSI" or not
Bernard, See my comments below. I am not getting my nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com mail from tm-pubsubj because of a mail server migration. Please CC my nisikawa@fuchinobe.skk.slb.com address for about a week. Wow, I missed a lot. You must have wondered why I was so quite ;-) I will attend the conference call. Cheers, Mary Bernard: <sigh/> I think we are not yet tuned on the vocabulary. There have been propositions during and after Orlando meeting, and they are for review in the draft documents on the TC Web, both for requirements and recommendations. I wish we agree ASAP on the terminology and stick to it. There is no way to move forward otherwise. To sum it up and try to clarify, once again: It was considered in Orlando that "Published Subject Indicator", and worse its abbreviation PSI, was overloaded, ill-defined and misleading. It was not clear if it was a resource or the reference of the resource, or both. Moreover, it did not make any difference between the publisher and the topic map author viewpoint. That's why the notion was torn to pieces and revisited throughout in Orlando. We finally decided not to restrict or refine the meaning of PSI, but to let it down altogether. Was it a good move? I think it was, because we clarified somehow the situation. So, are we definitely rid of PSIs? Not quite it seems. Let's try to explain once again. There is vocabulary describing the publisher viewpoint. I capitalize the terminology to highlight it, it is not capitalized in the TC documents. Mary: It has been hard for me to think from this viewpoint, which may be causing problems in my understanding. Thanks for separating out these two views. Bernard: 1. Published Subject is a subtype of Subject. It is not necessarily addressable, but it is *documented* in a proper way. But the Published Subject *is not* the documentation about it. Mary: Agreed. Bernard: 2. Published Subjects Documentation is providing stable identification/documentation/definition/description of/about a set of Subjects, therefore becoming Published Subjects - if they were not yet : the same Subject can be documented by different publishers in different Published Subjects Documentations. Mary: This is the entire set of documentation. The definition is meant to be general. What the documentation is may vary. The actual source reference (document or document node) that provides subject indicators, if stable and reliable, is also included in this documentation set? Bernard: 3. The part of a Published Subjects Documentation providing identification/documentation/definition/description of/about *one* Subject is a Subject Definition Document, or better, following recent proposition, *Subject Definition Resource*, since it can be only a document node. Mary: I like "Subject Definition Resource." The subject definition resource, then, is a subject indicator that has been declared to identify the subject, is stable, and is backed by a known publisher. Bernard: Now we have the viewpoint of the Topic Map author, who may use whatever resource he wants to indicate a subject identity. 4. Subject Indicator is a resource used by a Topic Map author to identify a subject. Hopefully, it is a Subject Definition Resource (in a relevant Published Subjects Documentation). At least that is the best practice to recommend to topic maps authors. But it cannot be made mandatory or inforced, because some times the author won't find any available Subject Definition Resource, and will pick whatever she'll find, hoping the resource chosen is stable both in address and content. And hoping it fits really the need. Declaring Subject Indicator is in the full responsibility of the TM author. It does not involve the Subject Indicator publisher, not even aware of it. If the TM breaks because this Subject Indicator is not trustable, it's not the responsibility of the publisher of the resource, who certainly never declared it was trustable, nor even intended to define any subject with it. And there is no way for the topic map author to make *any* resource a (proper) Subject Definition Resource just by pointing at it, saying "Hey, don't you move anymore, I've PSI-ed you". Mary: If the TM author wrote the TM with subject indicators that are "authoritative" subject definition resources, then this PSI set in xtm can be thought of as a "set" of subject definition resources. I think that if I were a publisher of subject definition resources, I would want to have them in one xtm file. I am still not clear what else would be required by me as a TM author to make my subject indicators subject definition resources. I guess this is for later? I would guess that a TM author would also become a publisher to avoid, "Hey, don't you move anymore, I've PSI-ed you." funny, Bernard. I get it. Bernard: 5. Subject Indicator Reference is the URI used in <subjectIndicatorRef>. This is purely technical, and it's completely again the TM author viewpoint. In that context "Published Subject Indicator" could still be used in a consistent way, in the (recommended) situation where the TM author has indeed be wise enough to use as Subject Indicator a conformant Subject Definition Resource. Therefore I would propose, if you like, to keep "PSI" but with the following definition, pointing at a full agreement, trust and tuning between a Subject Documentation Publisher and a TM Author. "A Published Subject Indicator is a Subject Definition Resource used as a Subject Indicator" If we don't get over with that one, I surrender ... Mary: Oh, please don't. I'm just starting to get clear on this one. I think that the definition needs a little more. I would like to keep PSI and define it to include what you have written above, and include a little more. It may not be what I have written below, I'm just trying to make sure that I get your meaning. The Subject definition resource used as a subject indicator by the Topic Map author, becomes a published subject indicator. A set of published subject indicators then, can be published as a subject definition resource set in xtm syntax. I hope I have the correct sense of plurality here. To be continued at the meeting... Cheers, Mary
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC