[topicmapmail] PSIs?

[Lars Marius Garshol]

(This was written very quickly, and that probably shows. Sorry.)

* Murray Altheim
| 
| I don't follow. If I publish a spec that includes an XTM document,
| and use its IDs as the PSIs (i.e., make it clear that they are the
| PSI URLs), but also have subject identity with the URLs found in the
| XSD spec, what's wrong with that? 

See <URL: http://www.ontopia.net/tmp/pubsubj-gentle-intro.htm >,
requirement 2. Basically, that XTM is not human-interpretable.
(Actually, we should fix that wording. "interpretable" is too broad,
it should be "human-oriented".)

| It's not leaving any ambiguity if the spec says use the ones I have
| created. 

I agree, though why you would then want the other URIs I don't know.

| I'm very uncomfortable defining PSIs that happen to have a base URL
| in the W3C namespace/domain, and there might even be legal barriers
| to me doing so. 

I agree. The question is whether you are reusing those already there
or creating new ones.

| I can, however, publish something within my own namespace/domain and
| claim subject identity with W3C/XSD, which is what I've done.

So you don't define PSIs within the W3C domain, just SIs. I'm not sure
there's a big difference.
 
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Unless it also has the PSI URLs in there you'll have to load the file
| over HTTP to get the equivalence declarations between the PSI and
| "sID" URLs. That won't work in all cases, of course.
 
* Murray Altheim
|
| They wouldn't in order to use the PSI set, it's just that if they
| did, they'd have subject identity with any other PSI that used the
| XSD definitions, which is whole point of my having them (and to me,
| the whole point of doing this in topic maps).

What I'm trying to say is that if I download datatypes.xtm and load it
from a local file and merge it with one of my own topic maps that use
the PSIs defined by you they won't merge because the PSIs defined by
you won't actually be in datatypes.xtm.

| Because, as I mentioned above, I want merging behaviour with anyone
| else's topics that match the XSD subjects.

Right. My instinct in that case would be to use the XSD ones and claim
that they already existed and that you are only annotating them.
 
| There is only one single PSI identifier for each subject. I don't
| see any harm in including the XSD URL as a binding point as well, so
| long as my documentation (both in the spec and in the comments of
| the XTM document) make it clear which to use as the PSI.

I agree there's no harm. I don't feel it's very clean, but you won't
actively hurt anything.

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