[sc34wg3] Topics and Subjects clarification

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Bernard Vatant
| 
| Finally it seems that we land on the same page after all ...

Uh, do we? Do you think the #topic PSI makes sense as currently
defined? If you do we are on different pages.
 
| Meanwhile I had tried to gathered my thoughts at
| http://www.universimmedia.com/topicmaps/subjects.htm

I've read this, and have no real problems with it, except that it
stops just at the point where it starts to discuss something of real
substance (SAM issue term-subject-def). I would love to see you
continue that document where it leaves off.

As the document stands I have no arguments against it, but I don't
feel that it says anything much, either. (Sorry.)

My view on this issue is that the design of topic maps make the
assumptions about subjects that are described in the current SAM
version, and that whether we state these assumptions or not, they are
baked into the design of the standard, so that we cannot escape them
in any case. 

Arguments to the contrary would be interesting and welcome, though.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >