[topicmaps-comment] Subject Identifier: Was Good PSIs never die

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

Sam,

Just emerging briefly before returning to bible schema work ;-).

Sam Hunting wrote:

>>
>>[Lars Marius]
>>
>>>>We do need to be *really* clear on one thing: the subject
>>>>indicator itself (the resource, the text, the thing humans read)
>>>>
>is
>
>>>>*only* for human documentation. It has no other purpose
>>>>
>whatsoever.
>
>>>>When machines do merging they use the URI (also known as the
>>>>
>subject
>
>>>>identifier, precisely for that reason).
>>>>
>
<snip>

>
>There isn't anything here about a subject indicator being ONLY for
>human documentation. (In fact, the above definitions definitely permit
>the intent of the author to be expressed by a statement in a
>machine-readable, controlled vocabulary.) So I'm confused.
>
>Is the OASIS PSI committee recommending the replacement of XTM 1.0
>semantics for subject identity with new semantics?
>
I think the distinction that Lars is drawing is between something that 
is machine-readable (URI) versus the text I would consult to decide if a 
particular PSI is appropriate for my topic map. Some URI's might be 
obvious enough for humans to resolve as well but I can easily imagine a 
"subject identifier" (as text) that makes distinctions that are hard to 
capture in a a "subject identifier" (as URI).

On a quick read, don't know that I see that as any different than how I 
have viewed PSIs in the past. Perhaps we need a change in how we speak 
about subject identifiers so we are not overloading the term? (I tend to 
know what I am thinking as opposed to what I am saying and that can lead 
to confusion. ;-)

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu