[tm-pubsubj] New attempt at terminology

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

Comments from Steve and myself on the terminology issue. Please refer
to the latest version of the Recommendations (0.2 January 19) at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/psdoc.htm
("psdoc")

Our basic assumption is that we base our definitions on 13250/XTM but
suggest modifications where we think they are necessary. (This will be
input to SC34/WG3.)


subject
-------

psdoc: "as defined by ISO 13250 XTM"

OK.


subject indicator
-----------------

  "A subject indicator is a resource that is intended by the topic map
  author to provide an unambiguous indication of the identity of a
  subject. Any resource can become a subject indicator by being
  referred to as such from within some topic map, whether or not it
  was intended by its publisher to be a subject indicator."

Changes:

 - didn't like "by some topic in some topic map": references to
   subject indicators are not always made by topics. Replaced by "from
   within some topic map".

 - do the words "positive" and "therefore" really add anything? We
   thought not, and took them out. The last sentence was also
   simplified a little.

 - replaced "subject definition resource" with "subject indicator".

 - note that the second sentence extends the XTM definition, with, in
   our opinion, much needed information.


subject identifier
------------------

Mary claimed that this term is not needed, and confusing to have.

We agree. (See published subject indicator, however.)


subject indicator reference
---------------------------

Not defined in the terminology part of XTM. Used only for the
<subjectIndicatorRef> element. Suggest we don't need to define it
here.


publisher
---------

What are we going to use this term for? Why do we need to define it?


published subject
-----------------

This term is not defined in the terminology section of XTM 1.0. The 
definition quoted in psdoc is taken from the text in 2.3.1.

We suggest a simpler definition than the one in psdoc:

  "A subject for which there exists at least one published subject
  indicator."


subject definition resource
---------------------------

Like Mary, we don't see the need for this when we already have "published 
subject indicator".


published subjects documentation
--------------------------------

(1) The use of plural form ("subjects") is not good from a language
point of view. This can quite happily be called "published subject
documentation" even if it is about documentation that may cover
multiple subjects, so the name of the term should be changed.

(2) "Documentation" is non-discrete: you cannot have "a documentation"
(nor "several documentations"), so the definition also needs changing.

To solve these problems we think the term "published subject
documentation set" is needed, and it can be defined as follows:

  "The complete set of documentation about a set of published
  subjects, as published by the publisher."


published subject indicator
---------------------------

psdoc, following the provisional terminology established in Orlando,
uses "subject definition resource". We think, however, that published
subject indicator, abbreviated PSI, is cast in stone. Some people
might not like it, but it's too much a part of topic maps now to be
thrown out. The definition in XTM is, we think, good enough:

  A subject indicator that is published and maintained at an
  advertised address for the purpose of facilitating topic map
  interchange and mergeability."


published subject identifier:
-----------------------------

After due consideration we really think we need a term for the URI of
a published subject indicator, e.g. for the string
"http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/core.xtm#sort". 

From the machine processing standpoint, these strings are as important
(actually, more important) than the human readable resources that
indicate the identity of a subject and they need to be up there among
the other defined and named concepts.

What distinguishes the PS identifier from being just the URI of a
subject indicator is that it is the URI chosen to be the identifier of
the subject, that is, it is the canonical published subject indicator
URI. 

We propose the following definition:

  "The canonical URI of a published subject indicator, chosen as the
  URI to be used within topic maps to identify the published subject."

Since only published subjects can have such an identifier we see no
need for the term "subject identifier".

---------

In summary: The following terms should be defined:

subject

   Anything whatsoever, regardless of whether it exists or has any other
   specific characteristics, about which anything whatsoever may be asserted
   by any means whatsoever.

subject indicator

   A subject indicator is a resource that is intended by the topic map
   author to provide an unambiguous indication of the identity of a
   subject. Any resource can become a subject indicator by being
   referred to as such from within some topic map, whether or not it
   was intended by its publisher to be a subject indicator.

published subject indicator (PSI)

   A subject indicator that is published and maintained at an advertised
   address for the purpose of facilitating topic map interchange and
   mergeability.

published subject identifier (PSI)

   The canonical URI of a published subject indicator, chosen as the
   URI to be used within topic maps to identify the published subject.

published subject

   A subject for which there exists at least one published subject
   indicator.

All of these should go into ISO 13250, rather than being defined by
the PubSubj TC.

---------

IMPORTANT NOTE: The acronym PSI has two expansions: published subject
indicator and published subject identifier. We actually think this
ambiguity is useful, because it neatly expresses the duality of what
we are doing: Creating both human-interpretable indicators and
machine-interpretable identifiers at the same time. By definition,
there should be a 1-1 relationship between PS indicators and PS
identifiers, and normally it will not be necessary to make the
distinction. Whenever it is important, the context will almost always
tell us the sense in which "PSI" is being used. If the context isn't
sufficient and the distinction is important, the expansions should be
used instead of the acronym.

--Lars M. and Steve