Re: [tm-pubsubj] New Gentle Introduction

[Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>]

Many thanks for your feedback, Peter. I've updated the document at
http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/pubsubj-gentle-intro.htm.

Those of you who haven't yet sent comments should refer to the
latest version.

At 22:35 20.02.2003 +0000, Peter Flynn wrote:
>This is very good.

Thank you. But still not good enough, I fear.

>1. The concept of merging topic maps is introduced via an oblique
>    reference (2.2, "When aggregating information through merging
>    topic maps"). Do we need to explain why one might want to merge
>    topic maps at all?

This goes almost to the heart of my concerns about the text as it
currently stands. I fear we simply *assume too much*. We don't
answer the "why should I care?" question.

You're right that the reference to merging appears out of the blue.
I think this will sort itself out once we know what needs to be said
in order to cater for those that don't already share our basic
assumptions. At the moment I don't know what it is that needs to be
said. Suggestions welcome. Why not try the text out on some
unsuspecting colleagues who represent our target audience?

>2. In 2.4.1, para after the Note, "Provided with a subject indicator,
>    human users should be able to know what subject the topic
>    represents." There isn't an antecedent referent for "the topic"
>    here, and the reader may have forgotten the basic premise in 2.2
>    ("Every topic must represent exactly one subject and every subject
>    must be represented by exactly one topic.") because that's quite
>    a long way back.

Good point. I don't think it's actually necessary to mention the
topic at this point. Changed to "able to know what subject is being
referred to". (Excuse the DP.)

>3. In the headings for 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 can we highlight "Indicator"
>    and "Identifier" (bold italics, underline, whatever) to emphasize
>    the distinction between the two sections?

I think we could, yes.

>4. In 2.5.1, can we emphasize the caveats from "whether or not..."
>    to the end of the second sentence?

Done.

>5. 2.5.2 is excellent, something we can give even to the least aware
>    publisher.

If that's true, we must be getting close :)

>6. In 2.5.3, do we assume the reader understands that this is all
>    subject to standard business uncertainty (ie Fruit.Org, Inc, is
>    taken over by International Juice Conglobulation, Pty, who don't
>    give a pith about Published Subjects and who trash the server?

I'm not sure whether we want to harp on that too much. We've mentioned
stability and trustability (?) and we chose a .org rather than a .com
deliberately, so I think we leave the reader to draw conclusions
like this herself.

Thanks again, Peter. You didn't mention 2.6, which is the bit I'm
least happy with.

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