psi-generics

Type(s): Issue

Description
- Should the "topic", "association", and "occurrence" PSIs be specified in the SAM? If so, what do they mean, and what is their function?
Opinion
- Apart from all the subject/topic stuff there is another argument to drop the 'topic', 'association' and 'occurrence' PSI's. They are most uninformative. Since any topic is an instance of class 'topic' by default (unless specified otherwise, says XTM), there is no information involved that is of any use to anybody. The user of the Topic Map will not want to see the class 'topic' listed among the classes of a topic; therefore a Topic Map engine will have to suppress it, and it makes no sense to me to introduce a property which only needs to be suppressed later. For the Topic Map engine there is also no useful information in the PSI, since Topic Map engines 'know' what topics are (i.e. how to process them) without using this PSI. So to me it seems a piece of redundant information. Same goes for the 'association' and 'occurrence' PSI's. - Scope: Marc de Graauw
- I tend to think a PSI for "topic" is of no use at all - Scope: Bernard Vatant
Resolution
- These published subjects are of no practical utility, and are therefore not retained in the SAM.

Discussion
- http://isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2002-July/000360.html

Object id: 206
Item identifier(s):
[file:/apps/ontopia.net/tomcat/ontopia-5.3.0/topicmaps/tm-standards.xtm#psi-generics]