subject-vs-resource

Type(s): Issue

Description
- Should the standard state outright that "subject" and "resource" (as per RFC 2396) are the same thing? (Quote: A resource can be anything that has identity. Familiar examples include an electronic document, an image, a service (e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a collection of other resources. Not all resources are network "retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound books in a library can also be considered resources.)
Opinion
- ISO 13250 specifically states that the subject identify "may or may not be machine-interpretable, or may or may not be online". As noted above, it can also be "inferred from the topic?s characteristics." Therefore SAM should not confuse subject and resource as they are clearly two different things. - Scope: Martin Bryan
- This may constrain subjects, so I would be hesitant to do this. - Scope: Marc de Graauw
- lets say so. but perhaps define or say why the tm definition is more refined. i.e. we can distinguish whether the resource is network retreivable etc. - Scope: Graham Moore
Resolution
- Let subject definition in the SAM stay as it is in 3.4. Not making an explicit reference to RDF.

Object id: 693
Item identifier(s):
[file:/apps/ontopia.net/tomcat/ontopia-5.3.0/topicmaps/tm-standards.xtm#subject-vs-resource]