term-subject-def

Type(s): Issue

Description
- Should the standard say as little as possible about the nature of subjects, or should it be more detailed in order to provide guidance to readers? The current text is detailed, but may be too much so.
Opinion
- Say little that is normative, and you can say a lot that is non-normative. I would not want my subjects to be constrained in any normative way. - Scope: Marc de Graauw
- The part about the subject...is it necessary here? Looks more as an abstract introduction into TMs. - Scope: Robert Barta
- There is too much text about subjects and their nature. is this really relevant in the sam spec? - Scope: Espen Holje
- | Should say almost nothing about subjects other than they are represented in a topic map by topics. This is the topic map standard and not the "true world view epistemology standard." - Scope: Patrick Durusau
Resolution
- Take examples out and put in note (to avoid reliance on examples as limitation) Use Plato's example of the good as part of the note.

Discussion
- http://www.universimmedia.com/topicmaps/subjects.htm
- http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0376.htm#sc34_6-9Dec2002_Corrected-div-d0e141

Object id: 288
Item identifier(s):
[file:/apps/ontopia.net/tomcat/ontopia-5.3.0/topicmaps/tm-standards.xtm#term-subject-def]