On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:38:48 -0500, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Danny Ayers wrote: > > Bob, quick question: Take PaceCategoryRevised. Replace the word > > "category" with "subject"/"subjectIndicator" throughout. > > What doesn't work? > Well, I don't think subjects should have schemes. They should just > be URIs.
Hmm, couldn't the scheme slot contain the subject indicator URI? (or scheme+term concatenated?) >What I would probably do is something like this: > <subject > subjectIndicator="http://bobwyman.pubsub.com/"; > label="Bob Wyman's Blog"> > <category > term="Writers/Idiocy/Complete" > label="Crazy People" > scheme="http://pedantic.org/topics.xtm"/> > </subject> Sorry, I can't see the intent here - in English? I've not gone into TMs in any depth myself, though it's clear they have got these things worked out pretty well. Over in the RDF world the SKOS vocabulary [1] is the place for heavy-duty thesaurus/categorization kind of stuff, and coincidentally the core vocab got a subjectIndicator property about a week ago [2]. I'm still optimistic that references can be made to TM PSIs and SKOS mappings. The current Pace has a slot for a for a URI one for a string (in addition to the label), that must be adequate, surely? Maybe some renaming of the elements/attributes could make things clearer? > Basically, if we switch our focus to subjectIndicators, the world is > wonderful and terribly simple -- except for the minor problem which is that > everyone except librarians and IR specialists think of this stuff in terms > of classification and we'll have to spend lots of time telling people "No, > that's not a 'subject' it's a classification....!" That is a point - and as Graham says, the primary use will be the simple use as found in blogs. But it would be a shame if more industrial-strength classification/categorization weren't possible. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
