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] Subject Indicator and Subject Indicator Reference(again)



* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Whoops. Your terminology use clashes here. Subjects, in topic map
| terms, and resources, in IETF terms, are synonymous.

* Bernard Vatant
| 
| Are they really? 

I think so, but it is difficult to be sure. I wrote the above
half-hoping that someone would challenge it.

The relevant piece of scripture is RFC 2396, section 1.1, which is
delightfully vague:

  "A resource can be anything that has identity.  Familiar examples
  include an electronic document, an image, a service (e.g., "today's
  weather report for Los Angeles"), and a collection of other
  resources.  Not all resources are network "retrievable"; e.g., human
  beings, corporations, and bound books in a library can also be
  considered resources."

Subjects do have identity, and since this is the only requirement of
resources it would seem that they are the same. I'd like to discuss
this with IETF-ites to make 200% certain, but it does seem like it is
the same.

| ... hope this will not open another neverending thread :))

Not here, anyway. :)

| "Notion of individual freedom according to Kant" can definitely be a
| subject in topic map terms. Is it a resource in IETF terms? Not sure
| about it.

It is. It has identity.
 
| Anyway you're right, I've stuffed too many controversial words in a
| single sentence, and should have written "addressable resources" to
| be clear.

The IETF term is "network-retrievable resources". Perhaps we should
consider ditching our own term for this and adopting the IETF one?
 
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| I would say that it means that the responsible people have
| identified this as an unsolved problem, and that while they want to
| solve it they do not yet know how.
 
* Bernard Vatant
|
| Agreed. And are not we ploughing the way towards some kind of solution?

We are, and they are considering solutions similar to ours, but they
don't seem very open to listening to topic map people. I've made some
overtures, but not had much success.
 
* Bernard Vatant
|
| 2. It's declared under <subjectIdentity>, so it's clearly an
| identifier.
 
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Eh, no. It's clearly part of the machinery used to determine the
| identity of the topic's subject, but that's all.
 
* Bernard Vatant
|
| So what is an identifier for you?

I think you are right, I just think that particular argument doesn't
hold water.
 
* Bernard Vatant
|
| -- The URI used as "subject identifier" identifies the subject by a
| proxy resource, which is the "subject indicator".

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Hmmm. I am not entirely at ease with this phrase. I need to think
| about it.
 
* Bernard Vatant
|
| The wording is not the best, I acknowledge. 

It's not, and the real problem is that it seems like if the term is
"identifier" you should be able to say it that way. So when it doesn't
sound right is that because there is something wrong with the term, or
is it something else?

| What I meant is that if we have to choose something to identify the
| subject, in a way consistent with the TM notion of what a subject
| is, by a *character string* - and that is my notion of an identifier
| - what could it be except this URI, which is really what TM authors,
| TM engines, and Publishers will all use ...

Base name in a particular scope. (*hysterical laughter*)

No, I agree with you that "identifier" seems right. It is what is
going to be used to identify subjects. On the other hand it has until
now been seen merely as something that points to the *real*
identifier, the subject indicator. I never liked that view, but I know
there are people who do, and who haven't been heard in this debate
(SRN, in particular).

I guess there are two point of view here: the human-centric and the
software-centric. From the human point of view the subject indicator
is what counts, but from the software point of view it's the URI that
counts.

On the other hand, what is in the topic map is the URI, so that view
could be said to hold a certain natural supremacy.

I'm pretty convinced, but I'd like to see the other side try to shoot
us down before letting go of this completely.

--Lars M.



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC