[sc34wg3] Strawman draft of ISO 13250-1

Lars Marius Garshol sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
05 Nov 2003 23:44:27 +0100

* Bernard Vatant
| I feel like I am in those who have not understood :(

Maybe. :-)
| Do I have to understand then that my (long) today post about subject
| identification was off-topic and will not even be discussed?

Not really, but "subject identity" is not a defined term any more. The
committee discussed this, and decided not to define the term[1]. Steve
then made a mistake writing this draft (I'd say; not sure he agrees),
and so the first thing we'd have to discuss is whether it should be
defined at all. We've already decided once that it shouldn't be.

So I wouldn't take the technical content of part 1 too seriously. I
don't think Steve put all that much work into it. As far as I know he
mainly wanted to produce an example text that would highlight the sort
of editorial issues facing us so that we can work those out.
| My suggestion was that Part 1 should let the door open to other
| subject identification mechanisms than the particular ones defined
| in Part 2 (TMDM). Is that off-scope?

Well, it assumes too much. For example, it assumes that part 1 is
going to have normative content, and that it's going to define the
terms currently defined by the TMDM. We haven't decided that. That's
what we want to discuss.

Also, I don't think the definition as Steve gave it can be used. He
talks about topics and their properties, but topics don't have
properties. It's topic items that have properties.
| The passage I commented in Part 1 is found nowhere in TMDM as far as
| I can tell. So what could I comment on?

I'll repeat what I wrote:

  What *is* being sought is comments on this particular editorial
  solution. That is, what do we want part 1 to do, and what do we want
  part 2 to do? Should we define "subject" in part 1 or in part 2, or
  (heaven forbid) both? Should part 1 just be a guide to 13250? Should
  it also include a topic map tutorial? Should that tutorial be

Isn't this pretty clear? We seek feedback on the editorial issues that
arise when we try to have a part 1 for ordinary readers and a part 2
that is stringent and precise. How do we avoid duplication? Do we want
to have a normative tutorial? Do we want it to be in an annex? Or what?

  If you want to comment on the substance, please read TMDM and comment
  on that.

So if you want to comment on substance, please read N0443 and comment
on that. I assure you you are more than welcome to do so.

[1] <URL: http://www.ontopia.net/omnigator/models/topic_complete.jsp?tm=tm-standards.xtm&id=term-subject-identity >

Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >