Re: [tm-pubsubj] Deliverables: Conversation starter

[Mary Nishikawa <nisikawa@fuchinobe.oilfield.slb.com>]

Hi Patrick,

I took some time to look over some of our past work to see where we are 
now. Most of this was done before you belonged to the committee and after 
moving to Kavi, the documents have really gotten mixed up.
I am assuming what we are discussing about Deliverable  2 as described here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/general.htm

I think that we also have process requirements below. This is what Lars 
Marius wants perhaps?
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/requirements/part1.htm
We can take a look at what we have and go from there. Is there is anything 
newer, please point it to me. Thanks.

We have done lots of work so far. I think we need to see what we have. I 
finally did find the London Minutes.
---------------------
Editor's Notes:

1. This document is the first of a series of deliverables that will address 
definition, publication, management and best practices about Published 
Subjects. This first document provides only generic and minimal concepts, 
requirements and recommendations necessary to understand, define, provide 
and use Published Subjects.

2. All technical issues, currently under discussion in the Technical 
Committee, are not addressed by this document, but will be by future 
deliverables. Among others, the following will be addressed by Deliverable 2.
·       Structure and interpretation of Published Subject Identifiers (URIs)
·       Structure and format of Published Subject Indicators
·       Examples of Subject Indicators in specific syntax (XTM, RDF, XHTML 
...)
·       Content, structure and format of Subject Indicator Metadata
·       Distinction between Subject Metadata and Subject Indicator Metadata.
3. This document uses topic maps terminology, and intends to be consistent 
with its use both in ISO 13250 specification and in the Standard 
Application Model for Topic Maps, the latter currently under discussion. 
Terms like "subject","topic", "subject indicator", "subject identifier", 
"published subject", "published subject indicator", "published subject 
identifier", are introduced informally in this document. SAM provides 
normative formal definitions for those terms.
See http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/ for current SAM editor's draft.

An according to this, the title for deliverable 2 is  Recommendations for 
Published Subjects Documentation Structure

Is this correct?

Updated : September 26, 2002

PubSubj TC Process Requirements
A. Documentation of Published Subjects - TC Process Requirements
Document approved - February 22, 2002
B. Management of Published Subjects - TC Process Requirements
To be delivered
C. Usage of Published Subjects - TC Process Requirements
To be delivered

PubSubj TC Deliverables
1. Published Subjects - Definitions, Requirements and Examples
Final Draft - Updated September 26, 2002

2. Recommendations for Published Subjects Documentation Structure
Draft proposal - Updated June 27, 2002
3. Recommendations for Published Subjects Management
To be delivered
4. Recommendations for Published Subjects use
To be delivered


*Patrick
Just a conversation starter on the topic of deliverables for the PubSubj 
TC. (Not a proposal, probably will disagree with myself if I think about 
any of the following very long.)

Seems to me that we need to get some deliverables, i.e., examples of how to 
do PSI out sooner rather than later.

Pepper remarked that one of my examples in an earlier post was 
"sub-optimal," which I agree with but I am not all together certain that we 
should wait until we have the ultimate PSI syntax and mechanisms before 
releasing deliverables from the PubSubj TC.

While my examples were "sub-optimal" even as HTML based PSIs, I think it is 
the case that PSIs that are published using topic maps will certainly have 
more capabilities than those that written as HTML pages. Same is the case 
for PSIs that use the OAI mechanism for storage will have advantages over 
static HTML PSIs.

What I see as potential deliverables from the PubSubj TC are:

>1. HTML based PSIs (with notation as to their limitations)
>
>2. OAI based PSIs
>
>3. Topic Map based PSIs
>
>I think Pepper has made as good a case as can be made for why PSI are 
>important, but making the case is not enough. We need to empower people to 
>start using PSIs.
>
>It is arguably the case that PSIs constructed by ontology 
>experts/consultants are going to be more useful both in terms of content 
>and delivery systems than those written by sixth grade history classes. 
>But, just like HTML 3.2 introduced millions to markup (talk about a 
>sub-optimal markup language), an easy road to building and using PSIs will 
>gain us more notice in the marketplace of ideas (and potentially in the 
>marketplace where commerce occurs).
>
>The case has been made for PSIs, I don't think we should keep our fans 
>waiting while we work on the ultimate solution.
>
>BTW, the idea of published subjects came up with a vendor recently at the 
>SBL and I suspect they would be willing to devote the programming cycles 
>to mine their databases for Bible related topics (names, personal, 
>geographic, etc.) to produce PSIs for biblical studies. What they need is 
>a syntax for expressing it. I am fairly sure I can find hosting for such a 
>set of PSIs. ;-)
>
>Hope everyone is having a great day!
>
>Patrick
>
>--
>Patrick Durusau
>Director of Research and Development
>Society of Biblical Literature
>Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org
>Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
>Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
>
>Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of 
>the OASIS TC), go to 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tm-pubsubj/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>