W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2004

RE: Global concept identification and reference: Published Subjects and decentrally provided identification points for notions

From: Gabriel Hopmans \(Morpheus\) <g.hopmans@mssm.nl>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:40:46 +0100
To: "'Houghton,Andrew'" <houghtoa@oclc.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101c4c776$51d8fd60$76ce7889@solide01>

Hello All,

Today I indeed informed Alexander that I found it a bit strange that I saw a
lot of discussions on this mailing list that are so close to Topic Maps and
Published Subjects while these weren't mentioned. (except the PSI nocturne

I don't know if you know the Published Subjects Indicators for Modelling
(see <URL: http://www.techquila.com/psi/thesaurus/ >)

To reply to Andrew Houghton's e-mail I will only focus on the last part
because I think Alexander Sigel answered largely the first part.

~-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
~Van: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org]
~Namens Houghton,Andrew
~Verzonden: woensdag 10 november 2004 19:30
~Aan: public-esw-thes@w3.org
~Onderwerp: RE: Global concept identification and reference: Published
~and decentrally provided identification points for notions
[snip, snip]

~issued by the publisher of the KOS.  The document initially has the
~focus that PSI's are for KOS publishers, but then they go off into
~the wind without thinking about the implications of suggesting
~*anyone* can create them.

I think that with recommendation 5 the document indirectly involves the
creator with an implication. 
(Recommendation 5: "A Published Subject Indicator should identify its
publisher." In 
"Published Subjects: Introduction and Basic Requirements", <URL:
df. >
But see also next.

~Certainly, once published, anyone can use them since the requirement
~is that the URI must resolve to a human readable resource that is a
~description of the concept in the KOS.  This implies that a PSI
~cannot be behind authentication schemes, but it's not strictly
~forbidden and I'm assuming it's not forbidden to allow KOS
~publishers to use PSI's in a private service oriented context.
~Some KOS publishers will not be willing to use PSI's due to
~intellectual property concerns, but might be willing to provide
~opaque URI's to concepts in their KOS.

If you read subsection 4.1 of the paper "The XML papers: Lessons on applying
Topic Maps" by Pepper and Garshol (see <URL:
http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/xmlconf.html#XML-Europe-2002 > )
you might see that in your last points those publishers will think twice.
The whole subsection explains more about published subjects and the benefits
of publishing stable and trustworthy PSI sets.

In your examples for KOS publishers they will get the problem that their set
of subject-indicators will not become commonly used or accepted. The key for
those publishers to use PSI's in a private service oriented context is that
they identify a subject in a published subject and deal with their own
context outside that published subject. Subjects are going to be globally
identified while authentication can be determined locally.



G. Hopmans
Morpheus Software
Knowledge Engineering Services

<URL: http://www.mssm.nl/en >

P. O. Box 240
6200 AE Maastricht
the Netherlands

Oxfordlaan 70 (Biopartner Incubator building)
6229 EV Maastricht

T + 31 43 388 5831
M + 31 65209 1795
F + 31 43 388 5889
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:41:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:04 UTC