[topicmapmail] PSIs - alternatives

[Murray Altheim]

Quoting Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen at gmail.com>:

> Hi there,
>
>>> And I agree too that PSI's are fine. It's that resolver thing I've got
>>> a problem with.
>>
>> Not me. I think issues of resolution are what?  ...context-dependent.
>
> Non-exsistant? :)

Oh no, I wouldn't say that, only that resolution is always going to
be contextualized by the specific application of use, the community
using it, etc. Resolution in some communities might be via a wiki
page of docs, in others a print-published manual. etc.

>>> 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?
>>
>> I think "published" is also context-dependent.
>
> Hehe, that's the sort of answer I would expect from the likes of you. :)

I'm a lot of trouble.

>>> Sounds like we need a set of PSI's for PSI's. :)
>>
>> Only within the context of use that might require such a thing.
>
> Well, I was thinking of resolver at this point, so, yeah.

It'd have to be published as a service by the likes of ISO, which
would never happen.

The authorizing agency is the real issue, whether people pay attention,
etc.  Ontopia can do what they like but the rest of the TM crowd would
never take them as a standards body. No slur on Ontopia intended, it'd
be the same with Mondeca, etc. It has to be somebody neutral and
authoritive like OASIS, but that unfortunately didn't happen.

>>> 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. :)
>>
>> Same here, but I don't get nauseous about it; it seems like part
>> and parcel of the kinds of things that libraries have traditionally
>> and appropriately taken on in their roles of information management,
>> and I am happy whenever I hear of the library community stepping up
>> to the plate of that responsibility. I don't trust ISO, OASIS, the
>> W3C or the AI/KR/OntEng academic community for that kind of thing
>> -- the expertise is obviously in the library community. Figuring
>> out how to get librarians and computer scientists to talk to each
>> other is probably a large part of both our jobs.
>
> Amen. And I really don't get nauseous that easily. :) I spent my lunch
> hour reading Peppers paper, and it summaries things pretty well, but
> I feel it has got no *solution*, only suggestions. The reason we like PSI's
> is well established, but it's the "working together" part which is a
> bit flakey; all that human constructisms floating about. As much as
> we're technological world-savers doesn't mean we can do it on a real
> and human level. :)

yup. It is always the humans that mess up all that good stuff the
engineers design and build...

> Maybe what is needed is the worlds simplest, most portable, usable,
> free and clever PSI publishing software; just attach it to your psi
> subdomain, and off you go; ontology out of the box, publishing and
> possibly external resolving. It needs to be so simple and powerful that
> people would just simply gobble it up and bloody use it. If not, it will
> be pointless, unless Microsoft releases something like this to every
> PC around, and OSX comes with it, and Apache has it as a module
> or something ...

I have a feature in Ceryle to does something like that, but of course
its application is pretty limited.

Murray

BTW, I'm getting a real sense of deja vu about this thread... :-)
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray06 at altheim.com>                              ===  = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/                                     = =  ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk               = =  = =

       In the evening
       The rice leaves in the garden
       Rustle in the autumn wind
       That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu