Comments on the deliverable:
- Section 1, para 1: published subjects is not just about legacy,
though
- Section 2: I don't think we should put in a formal definition of
'subject'. That's already in ISO 13250, and we don't need to repeat
it here. Quoting the definition is OK, though probably not
necessary, but it shouldn't be a formal numbered definition.
(Ditto for 'topic', 'subject indicator', etc.)
Also, if we *do* quote the definitions we should make sure we get
them correct and use the latest ones (currently, that's the ones in
the SAM.)
- Section 2: Lonely, boldfaced list items appear here and there
throughout the text, but my visual parsing module can't work out
what they're supposed to do. Perhaps they should be removed or
turned into something else? Maybe they are really headings?
- Section 2.2, example: I think the example needs explanatory text so
that people know how to interpret the diagram.
- Section 2.3: A more serious problem with unpublished subject
indicators is that usually they are not unambiguous. That is,
people might conceivably use the same subject identifier to mean
different things. The second example shows this very clearly. Is
the subject apples in general, the kind of apple of which the one
pictured is an instance, that particular apple, red apples (as
opposed to yellow or green ones), or something else?
- Section 2.3: I think this example needs more explanation as well.
- Section 3, req #1: "a URI". :-)
- Section 4: do we need it, given that we already have given examples
in section 2?
--
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
