OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tm-pubsubj message

[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