At 09:26 30/04/02 +0200, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>* Bernard Vatant
>|
>| 1. Membership - new member approval.
>| 2. Process issues raised by recent debates.
>| 2.a - "Redefining the scope"
>| 2.b - "Eating our dog food"
>
>I think we are already agreed on these, so I hope we can just approve
>them very quickly.
I agree. I don't know of any controversy here at all.
>| --------------------------------------------------------
>|
>| 3. Steve's and Mary's proposals.
>| Presentation and comments.
>
>This is where the "real" content start, so I hope we can concentrate
>on this.
I can't speak for Mary, but I don't feel that this is where the real
content starts. I found the exercise of expressing a PSI set as a topic map
very interesting, but it has actually led me to the conclusion that topic
maps are *not* the best way to publish PSIs, for the simple reason that
they are *too* formal.
My position is now that the choice of "format" should be entirely open. The
only requirements are that the published subject identifier must resolve to
something human interpretable.
I will probably use XHTML for my Opera topics. I will then create a topic
map containing one topic for each subject in my PSI set, with absolute
minimum assertions about each topic (probably just a single base name,
perhaps occasionally additional base names in other language scopes).
Lars Marius continues:
>Could we also discuss my proposal?
>
> <URL:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tm-pubsubj-comment/200204/msg00048.html >
I think this is an excellent starting point for the main discussion and
propose that this be the main point on the agenda. Call it "The structure
and interpretation of published subject documentation".
However, we will only get informed discussion if everyone has studied the
proposal in advance...
Steve
--
Steve Pepper, Chief Executive Officer <>
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3 Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps)
Ontopia AS, Waldemar Thranes gt. 98, N-0175 Oslo, Norway.
http://www.ontopia.net/ phone: +47-23233080 GSM: +47-90827246
