Before I can weigh in on this problem, I'd like
to understand what
the issue is.
1) We are already agreed (pretty much I think)
that each subject
has a unique identifier with two faces, one for
computer, one for
humans (with overlap between the two)
2) Bernard would like to see there also be a way
for this PSI to
express the ontology, thesaurus, world from
which it came. Is that
correct?
I DO think these issues are important, as
Bernard has mentioned.
Keeping these things useful is EXTREMELY
difficult in even the
controlled world of libraries where there are
only a few number of
ontologies from which people are drawing for
subject analysis.
But then I may have missed the point entirely:>)
---Suellen
--On Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:19 PM +0100
Bernard Vatant
<> wrote:
>
> Mary
>
> Was your message intended to be private or to
the list? My answer
> is public :)
>
>> > Why? The dissidents could publish their own
set of PSIs making
>> > clear that they disagree with ISO PSIs (in
OWL, they could
>> > assert that
> using
>> > owl:incompatibleWith). And up to the users
to choose their
>> > authority. But if applications use ISO
PSIs, then let them be
> conformant to what ISO
>> > asserts.
>>
>> This is still not in the committee's scope.
You think it in our
>> scope to say whether we are or are not
Pubsubj policemen or
>> women, and describe that? :)
>
> That is not a question of anybody, *us* or
*them* making the
> police. We are about recommended practices,
that we think could
> avoid any semantic web (of any kind or size,
private or public,
> local or global) to become a semantic mess.
People consider too
> much that there should be exactly one PSI by
subject in the
> universe. This is clearly unsustainable. There
will be a lot of
> PSIs published by various authorities for
similar subjects, that
> some (publishers or users) may consider
identical or not. My
> choice of such or such PSI (see my example of
country) should
> depend on my commitment or not to the
publisher's ontology. What
> I say is: if you want the system to work
correctly, there is a
> kind of consensus, I would even say trust
contract, to be
> established between the publisher and the
users, in order for the
> PSIs to be used consistently by everyone. And
we should indeed
> recommend that if you don't agree on the
properties given by the
> publisher in this subject indicator, don't use
his/her PSIs.
> Certainly you don't speak about the same
thing. This is not
> making police. It's simply saying: if you
don't follow this rule,
> you will trigger a semantic mess, because
people and systems will
> believe you agree on this subject, though you
are not.
>
>> > > We are only providing a standard to
represent the
>> > > information in a computer.
>> >
>> > I disagree. The TC charter mentions
explicitly that we'll
>> > deliver recommendations for *definition,
management and use*.
>> > I have
>> proposed last
>> > year to review the charter, but everybody
seemed to be happy
>> > with the original one. So management and
process of use is not
>> > out of our scope. I
>> > would say that to-be adopters certainly
wait mainly for that
>> > before jumping in the wagon.
>>
>> This is in the context of OASIS (electronic
commerce) and this
>> is what I meant.
>> I think we are interpreting the charter
differently.
>> *definition, management and use* is always in
the scope of
>> information systems. I really do not
understand you here.
>
> I see pretty well that we disagree on the
interpretation of the
> charter. I believe I always had in mind
*mainly* the human and
> social aspects of the three objectives :
definition, management
> and use. Maybe I would agree the scope is
information systems, if
> an information system includes its human
users. Otherwise it does
> not make sense to me. What will users be able
to achieve with the
> PSI toolkit? What will they be interested in?
Gather piles of
> contradictory statements about what they
believe (maybe misled)
> to be the same subject? or build consistent,
effective systems
> based on clear agreement on ontology,
identifiers and
> identification process (like isbn.nu example)?
The former is an
> interesting academic exercise, but the latter
is really what we
> are about and what is the demand now,
everywhere.
>
> So we can't be agnostic about human process,
ontological
> commitment, community of users, and the like.
We are at a core of
> a very difficult problem in which the ratio
human/technical is
> certainly over 80/20.
>
> Bernard
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be
removed from the
> roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-
open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tm-pubsubj/members/l
> eave_workgroup.php.
>
Suellen Stringer-Hye
Jean and Alexander Heard Library
Vanderbilt University
