Re: [tm-pubsubj] Re: TC Website reorganization, and drafts update

[Mary Nishikawa <nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>]

Lars Marius,

See my comments below that also relate to subject indicator, subject 
indicator ref. I have a few questions between too. Thanks.

At 04:47 PM 1/21/02 +0900, you wrote:
>It sounds to me like you are talking about a large information space
>where only a few subjects actually need to be published, while the
>rest can be ordinary subjects. If that is the case publishing the
>published subject is not going to be all that much work, no matter
>what syntactical form is chosen.
>
>| Absolutely right, but I could have been clearer. The published
>| subject documentation set will contain PSIs in XTM and will point to
>| the html files that are subjects in themselves or point to subjects
>| in the html file via the fragment identifiers.
>
>Now we're on the same page. I consider this to be absolutely OK,
>although I would prefer the definitions to be in the XTM document
>where possible. That does not preclude their publication in HTML form,
>so long as the XTM version remains the point of common reference.

Are you recommending here that we should stick to the same syntax for 
whatever published subjects documentation set we make? It's either all XTM, 
RDF or XHTML?


>| I was under the impression that the recommendation would describe
>| XTM TM with subjects that would point to an xml file for each
>| subject with the dc metadata included. I think that this is
>| unrealistic and would not be implemented in principle.
>
>I don't like this solution either, especially as the DC metadata could
>be included right in the XTM topic map. I think many people will want
>to provide some DC metadata, but probably not all. IMHO people should
>be encouraged to do so, but not required.
>
>| Maybe this is my misunderstanding. If an xml file with dc metadata
>| is not used, for example, then how do we describe this in the
>| recommendation?
>
>What do you mean?

I am still wondering about the syntax for the metadata. For XTM syntax,  I 
think that we need a PSI set for the DC elements we want to use for the 
metadata of our published subjects.


>| In one of our portals, we do have metadata for each subject
>| (sometimes a huge subject containing many subjects) but it is not dc
>| metadata nor is it xml, but a URL query string that brings up an
>| html file containing the metadata. This metadata file has the
>| resource attached (another URL query string). I would guess that in
>| this example, I would want to use the metadata file as the indicator
>| of the subject in the XTM TM, correct?
>
>Not necessarily. You could do it, but you could also choose to use
>some other URI. The fact that some documentation for the subject can
>be found at that URI does not in any way compel TM authors to use that
>particular URI as the subject indicator reference. You might establish
>a different set of URIs and recommend their use instead. Duplication
>is in this case no problem.

I am still trying to get what you meant by this after looking at the 
discussion about subject indicator and subject indicator reference. So, if 
I did not use the original resource for the subject indicator reference, it 
could then possibly be used as a topic occurrence, addressable via a URI 
using <resourceRef>?  I would instead use some definition of the subject in 
a resourceData element within an occurrence element, and use the fragment 
identifier as the subject indicator reference?  The subject indicator 
reference in this case would be the base uri plus the filename plus the 
fragment identifier  as the attribute of xlink:href and the subject 
indicator would be the contents within the resouceData element?

I'm not so sure what you mean by duplication. Are you saying that  sets of 
published subject indicators for the same subjects (in a classification for 
example) may in fact be different. Two different publishers could actually 
published the subjects with different subject indicator?

I better get to sleep, otherwise I will begin going in circles about all of 
these definitions again.

-- Mary