[sc34wg3] Typo in 5.4.2 Identifying Subjects

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Patrick Durusau
| 
| Note that in the example, the URI http://www.topicmaps.org is said
| to be a "subject identifier" for topic B. In the following
| paragraph, that changes to make it a subject **indicator** for topic
| B.

That's true, but notice what the second paragraph says:

  The information resource in question is a subject **indicator** ...

So the second paragraph is talking about the information resource,
while the first is talking about the URI. The first does not really
make it clear that it is referring to the URI, however, so we'll fix
that. I think that will be clear.
 
| Not sure what it means to say that the "information resource" in
| question is ambiguous? May be poorly written, confused, etc., but
| hasn't the distinction (a la Pepper's "Curing the Web's Identity
| Crisis) already been made by the choice of subject identifier or
| subject indicator?

Good question. What we mean is that the information resource is
ambiguous in the sense that it does not clearly indicate a *single*
subject, but could reasonably be interpreted as indicating several
different subjects. So it's not really poorly written or confused, but
just fails to work well as a subject indicator, for the simple reason
that it was never meant to be one.

I think we should explain this in the example, since you're unlikely
to be the only person wondering about this.
 
| Not altogether happy with the "guaranteed to be stable" language but
| not sure I have a useful alternative to offer. PSI's are "supposed"
| to be stable but not sure we should indicate that stability should
| be assumed by users. How to even test for stability dips into
| implementation issues outside the scope of this document but it is
| something we will need to think about in PubSubj.

The thing about "guaranteed to be stable" is only there to make
readers consider the issue of "if I use page X as an SI for this
subject, do I really know that it will identify the same subject later
on?" Whether it's really appropriate to have it there I'm not sure. We
thought it was. Does anyone think otherwise?

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >