[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] IRC meeting agenda - Feb 6 - 14:00 UTC
* Bernard Vatant | | Agenda | | Discussion of Steve's re-drafting of | "Gentle Introduction to Published Subjects" | http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/pubsubj-gentle-intro.htm | | We have still a few hours to post preliminary comments here to bootstrap | the discussion. I sent Steve the comments below, but he didn't have time to apply them, due to other duties popping up at short notice, so I am reposting them here for the benefit of everybody. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the intro uses pretty much the right tone. It's semi-technical yet pretty gentle, and I think it's quite good. I don't think it covers all the things people will be wondering about, but we can extend that later. Some specific comments: 2.1: RDF "resource" is equivalent to TM "subject", not "topic" 2.2: "Subject identity". WG3 decided to discard this term as an official term, and so the SAM uses "Subject identification" instead. I feel that's a better term, because *that's* really what it is about. (I don't feel this needs to be a formal term that is introduced and defined, though. Presenting the issue is enough, I think, and we shouldn't think of this as a formal term, IMHO.) 2.3: "through the use of URIs": i.e, addressing with URIs I think a diagram here is a good idea, as it makes for a good contrast with the diagram below SAM does *not* use the terms addressable subject and non-addressable subject. See <URL: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#d0e582 > and <URL: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#d0e315 > 2.3: you have two 2.3 sections :-) 2.3.1: "network-retrievable information resource": there is no other kind, so this is like a rider on horseback re NOTE: the subject indicator is an information resource, which may of course be regarded as a subject by creating a topic with a subject address. Probably worth explaining this explicitly and relating it to the diagram above. 2.3.3: the example definition is problematic because it actually defines four different subjects. I think the intro will have to relate to that problem somehow. (I see now that you are aware of it, but I think you need to flag this problem more clearly. Some people will read this without realizing the problem, I think. Perhaps listing the four subjects more explicitly in 2.4.1 would help.) 2.4.2: "availaility" :) 2.4.3: another benefit is the higher precision of the definition -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC