> >| 1. Membership - new member approval.
> >| 2. Process issues raised by recent debates.
> >| 2.a - "Redefining the scope"
> >| 2.b - "Eating our dog food"
* Lars Marius
> >I think we are already agreed on these, so I hope we can just approve
> >them very quickly.
*Steve
> I agree. I don't know of any controversy here at all.
I'm glad to see you both so optimistic. There seems to be a consensus among those who
participated in this debate so far.
I want to make sure this is really a whole TC consensus.
> >| --------------------------------------------------------
> >| 3. Steve's and Mary's proposals.
> >| Presentation and comments.
*Lars Marius
> >This is where the "real" content start, so I hope we can concentrate
> >on this.
*Steve
> 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.
I came to the same conclusion a while ago, as you know. I'm happy we meet there at last.
> 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.
Agreed.
*Lars Marius
> >Could we also discuss my proposal?
> >
> > <URL:
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tm-pubsubj-comment/200204/msg00048.html >
*Steve
> 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".
OK. Sorry Lars Marius to have forgotten to mention it.
I wish we could anyway keep in mind the "issues" document and see if we get rid on some of
them on the way.
Bernard
