Re: [tm-pubsubj] IRC meeting agenda - Feb 6 - 14:00 UTC

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

* Bernard Vatant
| 
| Agenda
| 
| Discussion of Steve's re-drafting of 
| "Gentle Introduction to Published Subjects"
| http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/pubsubj-gentle-intro.htm
| 
| We have still a few hours to post preliminary comments here to bootstrap
| the discussion.

I sent Steve the comments below, but he didn't have time to apply
them, due to other duties popping up at short notice, so I am
reposting them here for the benefit of everybody.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the intro uses pretty much the right tone. It's semi-technical
yet pretty gentle, and I think it's quite good. I don't think it
covers all the things people will be wondering about, but we can
extend that later.

Some specific comments:

2.1: RDF "resource" is equivalent to TM "subject", not "topic"

2.2: "Subject identity". WG3 decided to discard this term as an
     official term, and so the SAM uses "Subject identification"
     instead. I feel that's a better term, because *that's* really
     what it is about. (I don't feel this needs to be a formal term
     that is introduced and defined, though. Presenting the issue is
     enough, I think, and we shouldn't think of this as a formal
     term, IMHO.)

2.3: "through the use of URIs": i.e, addressing with URIs

     I think a diagram here is a good idea, as it makes for a good
     contrast with the diagram below

     SAM does *not* use the terms addressable subject and
     non-addressable subject. See
     <URL: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#d0e582 > and
     <URL: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#d0e315 >

2.3: you have two 2.3 sections :-)

2.3.1: "network-retrievable information resource": there is no other
       kind, so this is like a rider on horseback

       re NOTE: the subject indicator is an information resource,
       which may of course be regarded as a subject by creating a
       topic with a subject address. Probably worth explaining this
       explicitly and relating it to the diagram above.

2.3.3: the example definition is problematic because it actually
       defines four different subjects. I think the intro will have to
       relate to that problem somehow. (I see now that you are aware
       of it, but I think you need to flag this problem more clearly.
       Some people will read this without realizing the problem, I
       think. Perhaps listing the four subjects more explicitly in
       2.4.1 would help.)

2.4.2: "availaility" :)

2.4.3: another benefit is the higher precision of the definition

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >