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] New attempt at terminology


Steve

I think we are homing to a very consistent agreement, meaning we got older and perhaps
even wiser ;-)
I'll do my possible to deliver a psdoc review ASAP in the hours to come.

Bernard

----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Steve Pepper" <pepper@ontopia.net>
À : <tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org>
Envoyé : mardi 29 janvier 2002 10:38
Objet : Re: [tm-pubsubj] New attempt at terminology


> At 20:54 28/01/02 +0100, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> >1. PSIs strike back ... funny indeed. Remember the argument we had in
> >Orlando for giving
> >up PSI was the ambiguity of the term.
>
> I think I was the one who proposed not using the term "PSI" in Orlando. But
> I didn't intend to "give it up" forever. My goal was to help us clear the
> cobwebs out of our brains and understand what the pieces of the puzzle were
> before worrying too much about naming them. (That's why I went in for long,
> explanatory names that I didn't expect to be adopted as final.)
>
> >Now you seem to say we have to bring it back *because of* this very
> >ambiguity. Although I
> >like the whole aesthetics of the idea, I wonder if it is sustainable to
> >set a vocabulary
> >whose whole purpose is clarification and disambiguation of subjects,
> >around a deliberately
> >ambiguous acronym - even "cast in stone" - that has two different
> >expansions and meanings,
> >so close to each other that certainly people will have hard time to
> >discern them. Think
> >about the time we took ourselves to get there ...
>
> Yes, but we got there and now we understand the picture fairly well -- and
> hopefully are able to explain it! Now the time has come to choose the best
> possible names, within the limits of what our historical baggage allows.
> Your discussion of the "definition/identifier" duality  (corresponding to
> "machine/human") helped a lot. If we make sure that this comes across in
> our deliverables, then the duality of the PSI acronym makes sense, and may
> even aid understanding.
>
> >2. If we want to have a "closed" terminology, why give up "subject
> >identifier"? I don't
> >follow Mary and you on that track.
> >If a topic map author uses a subject indicator which is not declared as
> >published, is not
> >the URI of this subject indicator a "de facto" subject identifier, by the
> >simple process
> >of being used - the same way the resource used is a "de facto" subject
> >indicator?
> >Suppose I use www.w3.org as an identifier URI for the topic "W3C", even if
> >W3C does not
> >care about it.  Several maps could use that same URI, and it will be used
> >by TM engines
> >the same way as an identifier when processing those TM, be it published or
> >not.
>
> I don't have too strong a position on this. I could go along with subject
> identifier even just for the sake of a "closed" terminology, but I think
> you are probably also right that people will have a use for this term.
>
> > > (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.
> >
> >Hmmm ... "one step forward, one step backward"
>
> Sorry for not speaking up earlier when you raised the suggestion. I was
> buried under a ton of work and didn't even see it until after you'd changed
> the document.
>
> > > (2) "Documentation" is non-discrete: you cannot have "a documentation"
> > > (nor "several documentations"), so the definition also needs changing.
> >
> >Ah ... I was not really aware of that. FYI in French, we can use
> >"documentation" for a set
> >of documents, as well as the office where the documents are held, the
> >department managing
> >them ... and the process of documenting.
>
> Those usages are OK in English as well, even the use of "documentation" for
> a set of documents. But you still can't talk about "a documentation" or
> "many documentations". Can you really do that in French? ("Nous avons deux
> documentations"???)
>
> > > 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."
> >
> >Not very elegant, but explicit.
>
> We really wracked our brains to find something more elegant, but we failed.
> If anyone has an alternative proposal, let's hear it. The key point is that
> we think we will seldom need to talk about a set of documents that
> constitute the documentation for a single published subject, but we *will*
> often need to talk about the set of documents that constitute the
> documentation for a whole set of published subjects, usually within a
> certain domain.
>
> > > published subject indicator
> > > ---------------------------
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >   A subject indicator that is published and maintained at an
> > >   advertised address for the purpose of facilitating topic map
> > >   interchange and mergeability."
> >
> ><sigh> All that road for coming back home ...
>
> Think of it like this: We have gathered much experience along that road and
> now we are all older and wiser :-)
>
> >To be explicit, we should say "chosen by the publisher". (Because an
> >author, or a gang of
> >authors, can also choose an URI as subject identifier, see above.)
> >
> >...
> >
> >ditto ... chosen *by the publisher*
>
> I'm happy with both of those additions.
>
> Do you have a chance of working all of this into a revised version of the
> document before the concall? I think it would make our discussions more
> effective.
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <pepper@ontopia.net>
> Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3  Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
> Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
> http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>



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


Powered by eList eXpress LLC