[Kal]
> I'm replying to you directly because I do not have privileges to post to
the working group list.
is a public list isn't
it?
Generally, within the XML community: what might be
machine-readable but not human-readable?
Nothing, imo.
Thomas Bandholtz
XML Network
Competence Center Content
Management
SchlumbergerSema
Sema GmbH
Kaltenbornweg 3
D50679
K闤n/Cologne
+49 (0)221 8299 264
-----Original Message-----
From: Kal Ahmed
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 1:19
PM
To: Bandholtz, Thomas
Subject: RE: [topicmaps-comment]
Good PSIs never die
Hi Thomas,
I'm replying to you
directly because I do not have privileges to post to the working group
list.
At 12:38 21/03/2002 +0100, you wrote:
> For PSIs which
are generated from some source of information
>
about subjects
> such as a database, is it
reasonable to also require that a
>
human-accessible version of the data be available ?
If you use a GET request like "[psi-service-url]?id=xyz" for the PSI,
the database service can return the topic having id=xyz in any agreed
format, i.e. XTM. This *is* human-accessable. Why create another
version?
I see a clear distinction between the
Published Subject Indicator and the topic which reifies the indicated subject.
I think from your comment that you do too and that you see the psi-service as
being the way to bridge this gap. Is that correct ?
I was replying to
the suggestion that the indicator itself should be dereferenced to provide a
human-readable resource. In either case (direct dereferencing or dereferencing
via a service) I don't think that a publisher should always be expected to
provide a human-readable resource for every PSI. Of course, I recognise that
there is likely to be a topic for every indicator and in fact, I would argue
that the *only* machine readable metadata that should be provided when a PSI
is dereferenced should be the URI of the topic which reifies the subject.
Cheers,
Kal
