OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

topicmaps-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: [xtm-wg] Suggested recommendations for Subject Indicators choice


This is a point we unformally discussed in the Conceptual Model subgroup in
Paris, I put it down before it flies away.

The choice of Subject Indicators is at risk of two equally dangerous
extreme ways : "chaotic" or "unique thought".
The "chaotic way" : each TM author chooses its own definition of subjects,
its own glossary, its own resources, yielding a very colourful but somehow
unsharable Map. The "unique thought way" : every TM author references to
the same unique and universal ontology, such as Dewey Decimal
Classification, or Cyc Ontology, or Standard Uppper Ontology ...

To keep the middle way between these two extreme ones is needed to ensure
both stability, non ambiguity and sharability of TM.
It seems to me we could add somewhere in the spec some prose about that,
either in an Annex, or, as Murray suggested to me, in the "subject
indicator" paragraph. I wrote yesterday the following draft proposition. I
did not present it in plenary session because it was not really on the
agenda. I put it there for what it's worth :

Cheers

Bernard

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

"Both conceptual model and syntax leave completely free and open the choice
of subjects and resources used to define subject indicators. Anyway,
non-addressable subjects are potential source of ambiguity. It's therefore
recommended that Topic Map authors choose, as far as possible, subject
indicators among stable public URIs or URLs found in any of the various
existing authoritative ontologies, indexes, thesauri, dictionaries ... to
ensure non-ambiguous, durable and sharable definition of subjects.
This recommendation aims only to suggest a way to make the subject
definitions as non-ambiguous, accurate and stable as possible, and does not
mean that anyone of such resources should be the unique reference source
for any « universal definition » of subjects."

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



To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC