*Lars Marius
> Comments on the SAM draft has now raised two issues:
>
> psi-identification
>
> How does one identify which topics represent published subjects,
> and which ones do not?
What is the purpose of this distinction?
Do you think this is a necessary distinction in any topic map, or is it specific to SAM ?
> psi-set-psi
>
> How does one create a topic representing the set of all published
> subjects defined as part of SAM in such a way that it can be
> reliably merged?
I don't understand why this is an issue. We need a PSI for this set, but in what is it a
specific issue?
> Both of these seem related to ISSUE 1, but ISSUE 1 is phrased in a way
> that is very unclear, and so it is not clear to me which of these
> ISSUE 1 actually represents. Either way, it seems that the issues
> document needs to be extended with one more issue, and that ISSUE 1
> needs to be phrased more clearly. Preferably, ISSUE 1 should be stated
> as a question, with no suggestion of how it might be resolved.
Yes. I know I *have* to review the issues document altogether. Hope to make it between
today and tomorrow ...
> It would be useful if this could be resolved this week, so that the
> Barcelona meeting of WG3 would know what SAM issues correspond to what
> PubSubj issues.
OK. I'll do my best ...
Bernard
