[sc34wg3] SAM-issue term-subject-identity

[Sam Hunting]

On 15 Jul 2002, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

> 
> * Ann M. Wrightson
> | 
> | 1. Yes, the term is needed, since it is a "co-ordination point" for
> | the various arguments about when topics should be merged - [...]
> 
> That's a possible use case. So we would use it to write sentences like
> "topics are merged when they have the same subject identity"? If so, I
> feel that the term (rather than its definition, as Marc claims) is
> broken, and should be replaced.

> To say "topics are merged when they have the same formal subject
> identification" sounds better, doesn't it?

It may sound better, but I don't kniow what it means. Humans are the
ultimate authorities for determining the subjects of topics -- "topics are
merged when they have the same subject identity" takes this into account
(human == informal) where "topics are merged when they ahve the same
formal subject indentication" (formal == machine readable). Perhaps if I
knew what "formal" meant in this context....

Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm)

Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools:  www.goose-works.org

XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------