[sc34wg3] Semantics of subject, topic type, etc

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Murray Altheim
>
> In your blog entry "PSIs for Topic Maps constructs" you state:
>
>   "One thing that's lacking in the current set of Topic Maps
>    standards is defined identifiers for the Topic Maps constructs,
>    like subject, topic, association, etc."
>
> I don't follow this at all. As you know, with the publication of
> XTM 1.0 in December of 2000 there were PSIs for all Topic Map
> constructs.

That's true. I forgot about that. The blog entry was written very  
quickly during the meeting, so I didn't really spend much time on the  
introductory text.

However, core.xtm didn't have PSIs for all the constructs, only for  
topic, association, and occurrence (plus the class-instance,  
superclass-subclass, and sort/display ones). Also, it lacks a formal  
definition of the semantics, and it was really the formal semantics  
that was the purpose of this exercise (and that's probably why the  
existence of core.xtm did not occur to me).

> You may feel the need to create PSIs for the new documents [...]

Yes, a decision was made by ISO to define new PSIs.

> Revisionist history or did you mean something else?

Forgetfulness, actually. :)

> Your proposed set seems merely a revision of the existing ones,  
> updated for the
> TMDM. Obviously a necessary and good thing.

An updated version with semantics added, yes.

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




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