[topicmapmail] Subject Identifiers metadata

[Dan Corwin]

Thomas B. Passin wrote:

> I don't agree about "PSIs seem unlikely" in this connection, though.

I was reacting only to your earlier suggestion that PSIs might work as
a way to let one refer to topics in a TM as subjects in their own right.

My point was that if those topics are being created *dynamically* in
bulk by a running program, they are unlikely to have any PSIs.

And if the PSIs do not exist, then they cannot become part of a general
scheme to reify topics, unless you *require* them.

I think we need a simpler solution that works generally, not just for
those topics which are identified by PSIs.

> However, I think that you will find that you will end up wanting to talk 
> about more than just the topics in a topic map.

Absolutely.  But if I cannot reify topics, how can I say anything about
them by using TM paradigms?  As a subject, each topic is "off-limits".

> If [TMDM's note] really says that, I think it is an error....  I say
> that if it has an id, it can be reified, if only to allow for the kind 
> of things we have been talking about in this thread..

I agree 100% with your thinking.  But my current reading of <topicRef>
in the XTM spec and the note in the TMDM spec seems to differ.

I'd be happy to learn I was wrong about this, but I sensed Jan had the
the same reading, at least about the TMDM note.

A more urgent concern to me is that I cannot reify a topic TODAY under
XTM 1.0 specs and current engines, or at least I do not know I can.

I like your suggestion on using <subjectIndicatorRef> in XTM 1.0, but
would it actually work?   Hence my Q3.

> Make sure not to mix up the idea of reifying a subject indicator with 
> the idea of referring to a specific topic.

Exactly right.  Kal's original post on this thread suggested there were
multiple ways to the former, and he only wanted to explore the best.

I muddied up the waters (sorry, Kal) by expanding the scope of the issue
to reifying topics as well, which may or may not closely relate.

Chreers,
Dan

PS - Thanks for your other comments, Tom.  I'll respond separately to
them to avoid additional "scope creep" in this thread.