[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