Re: Subject Indicator Pages for standard PSIs

Hi Benjamin,

>> [TMDM glossary terms]
>>> No matter how useless they are from a TMDM perspective (I find them to
>>> be valuable from a TMRM perspective)
>>
>> Please explain why they are valuable from a TMRM perspective.

> The TMDM should be a legend from the TMRM perspective. To describe a
> legend, one needs terms - and this is IMHO exactly what these subject
> identifiers are about.

Hmm... okay .... maybe ... I am unsure if this rare use case satisfies
them. Anyway. The train has left the station, TMDM contains them.

The reason why I think we shouldn't make them too prominent: Several
projects simply grab all PSIs without having understand them.

Anyway, although I think your changes to the PSI description is an
improvement, it could be optimised (nitpicking) if you move the
paragraphs

      """"
      This subject identifier is defined in the annex of TMDM to
      uniquely identify the formally defined term in Clause 3.
      [...]
      """"

to the description.

The assumption that the glossary terms are useful is one of the
prominent failures of novices (right after thinking that XTM is Topic
Maps). Several people assume that each topic is an instance of
glossary:topic or each occurrence is an subtype of
glossary:occurrence. That's the reason why I think they do more harm
than good.

[...]
> I agree that it should not be listed on
> http://psi.topicmaps.org/iso13250/model/ - but this would have needed
> another change in the generator logic I was too lazy to do yet.

ACK.

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>

<http://www.topicmaps.de/mailinglist/> German Topic Maps mailing list
<http://tinytim.sourceforge.net/> Open Source Topic Maps engine
<http://mappa.semagia.com/> Mappa - Python Topic Maps engine