[topicmapmail] PSIs - alternatives

[Alexander Johannesen]

Hiya,

On 6/21/06, Murray Altheim <murray06 at altheim.com> wrote:
> I agree with Steve -- PSIs are fine.

And I agree too that PSI's are fine. It's that resolver thing I've got
a problem with.

> "Breaking" over time is not necessarily a bad thing. But I'd question
> the meaning of "breaking", i.e., the URI is still viable as an identifier
> in 1000 years, even if the domain doesn't resolve.

Wasn't that Steve's point, though, that if it doesn't resolve to
something, it ain't a PSI anymore? What in fact does 'published' mean?

> For example, one web service could
> query another via OAI-PMH and receive any available PSIs or PSI sets
> matching a query. There's a ton of work being done on federated
> searching within digital libraries.

Sounds like we need a set of PSI's for PSI's. :)

> [...] there's an great deal of both research
> and development being done within the library community, and almost
> all of the issues being tackled here (such as subject identity,
> identification schemes, federation of identity, classification,
> classification systems, etc.) and in related areas by the W3C
> have been under consideration for many years within the library
> community. There's little point in reinventing the wheel here.

Maybe that's why I feel it's been discussed ad naseum ; I work for a
library, and all they talk about here is PI, federation,
classification, repositories and DRM. Sorry to bring my assumptions
along to this group. :)


Regards,

Alex
-- 
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
                                                         - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________