Re: [tm-pubsubj] Requirements oddity

[Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie>]

On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 14:35, Patrick Durusau wrote:
[...]
> "A Published Subject Indicator may provide human-readable metadata about 
> itself."
> 
> But the "metadata" isn't really about "itself" is it?

I think what we were trying to say is that the PSind can have metadata
about itself *as well as* about the PSident (as you say).

> [...] I would leave the requirement as stated, particularly since "resolve" is 
> left undefined, thereby allowing the full range of what are called 
> subject descriptors in ISO 13250 to be Published Subject Identifiers.

Sounds OK.

> I would however drop the second recommendation as confused. A Published 
> Subject Indicator is metadata (already constrained to be 
> human-interpretable) about the Published Subject Identifier.

I think a diagram of what metadata goes where would be useful.
Can a Subject itself have metadata, for example?

> Actually I think we need to revisit the entire document and re-write 
> using Published Subject, Published Subject Identifier and Published 
> Subject Indicator, written out in full and limit the use of PSI as 
> shorthand for Published Subject. Not a happy circumstance but would 
> accord with our usage up to this point.

I agree completely. Better still, choose at least one other word not
beginning with "I" to replace either Indicator or Identifier.

///Peter