[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-subject-def

[Marc de Graauw]

SAM has an issue listed:

Issue (term-subject-def):

Should the standard say as little as possible about the nature of subjects,
or should it be more detailed in order to provide guidance to readers? The
current text is detailed, but may be too much so.

The current text says:

*** quoting SAM ***
A subject is anything that has identity. In the most generic sense, a subject is
anything whatsoever, regardless of whether it exists or has any other specific
characteristics, about which anything whatsoever may be asserted by any means
whatsoever. In particular, it is anything on which the creator of a topic map
chooses to discourse.

The standard makes the following assumptions about subjects:

  a.. Subjects are atomic, meaning that a subject is conceptually a single
thing. That thing may be divisible into smaller components, but it is still a
single thing. That is, to speak of two things is to speak of two subjects. To
speak of a group consisting of two things is to speak of a single thing, which
is the groupâ?"or possibly three: the group, and its two members.

  b.. Subjects are identifiable, meaning that not only do subjects have
identity, but their identity can also be established. Two mechanisms are
provided for the purposes of establishing subject identity, one of which is
formal, while the other is informal.

  c.. Subjects are persistent, meaning that while a physical subject may
disappear the subject still has identity in the sense that we may continue to
speak of it. For example, the halibut William Cowper ate is long gone [cowper],
but it is still possible to make statements about it, and so it is still a
subject.

  d.. Subjects are independent of perspective, meaning that while there may be
different points of view on what something is each point of view is a subject in
its own right. So while Plato speaks of 'the good' his notion of it is clearly a
different subject from 'the good' of John Stuart Mill. For this reason topics
have no scope; there is no limit to their validity as notions.
*** end quoting SAM ***

I propose to replace this with what ISO13250 says:

subject In the most generic sense, a subject is anything whatsoever, regardless
of whether it exists or has any other specific characteristics, about which
anything whatsoever may be asserted by any means whatsoever.

The way XTM defines it would be fine with me too.

My rationale it that the standard shouldn't say to much on what subjects are.
Just leave it up to the authors. If someone sees a use for Topic Maps using
subjects that are non-atomic (whatever atomic and non-atomic mean), I think
that's fine. No need for the Topic Map Police to drop by and say that what is
being done does not conform to the standard. And the more you say, the more
fruitless debate is instigated: what precisely _is_ atomic? What does
'independent of perspective really mean'? Et cetera. I do not think that debate
is going to result in a better standard.

Marc