ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 18

Document Processing and Related Communication

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC18 N 5468

DATE: 1996.10.28

REPLACES

DOC TYPE:

Summary of Voting/Table of Replies

TITLE:

Summary of Voting on SC 18 N 5397, ISO/IEC CD 13250, Information

Processing - SGML Applications - Topic Navigation Maps

SOURCE:

Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 18

PROJECT:

STATUS:

This CD has been approved by SC 18. The results are being forwarded

to SC 18 for information and to SC 18/WG 8 for preparation of a

disposition of comments report and a recommendation on further

progression of the work.

ACTION ID: FYI

DUE DATE:

DISTRIBUTION: P and L Members

Working Group Conveners & Secretariats

MEDIUM: D

DISKETTE NO.: 36

NO. OF PAGES: 8

Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 18, American National Standards

Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036; Telephone: +1

212 642 4976; Facsimile: +1 212 398 0023; Email: mtopping@ansi.org

**SUMMARY OF VOTING**

**Document Title: SC 18 N 5397 - ISO/IEC CD 13250**

**Information Processing - SGML Applications - Topic Navigation Maps**

**SC 18 National Body P-Members (23)**

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, The
Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, Turkey,
UK, USA

**[CD Ballot]{.underline}**

**P-Members in Favour (17 of 23)**

Australia (Attach. 1), Brazil, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Finland, Ireland, Japan (Attach. 2), Netherlands (Attach. 3), Norway,
Romania, Russian Federation, Spain Sweden, UK (Attach. 4), USA

**P-Members Voting Against (0 of 23)**

**P-Members Abstaining (1 of 23)**

Germany

**P-Members who did not vote (6 of 23)**

Belgium, France, Italy, Republic of Korea, Turkey

**[USER REQUIREMENTS]{.underline}**

**P-Members in Favour (14 of 23)**

Australia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland,
Norway, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain Sweden, UK, USA

**P-Members Voting Against (0 of 23)**

**P-Members Abstaining (1 of 23)**

Germany

**P-Members who did not vote (4 of 23)**

Belgium, China, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands,
Turkey, USA

**Attachment 1 - Australia**

Australia votes with APPROVAL on this document, however, would like

the following comments to be taken

into account

AUST-1

General

Topic Navigation Maps must be interoperable with Text Encoding

Initiative elements (TEI DTD) like

\"taxonomy\" and \"category\". This compatability should be demonstrated

with examples using TEI DTD

elements, perhaps in an non-normative annex: TEI is very

widely-used, and a useful testbed for

proof-of-concept. CD 13250 should follow TEI terminology, if there

is any duplication.

AUST-2

General

The assignment of a link to a topic seems unneedfully unary: a link

is either present or not.

It is common practise that, at least initially, large text corpora

are marked up or indexed automatically based

on pattern-matching. For English and other languages with a large

number of homographs (words that are

spelled the same) there needs to be some indication that a link may

not be relevent to the topic. This

ambiguity is an important and continual fact of life in this area and

must be allowed for.

Furthermore, it is an attribute of thesauruses that some topics are

more or less relevant. Also, it is established

practise in text indexing and search engines to allow \"fuzzy

searches\" or \"intuitive searches\" that use

the rankings of related terms as weightings or in scores to determine

which links to return as \"hits\" from a

search, and in what order.

So some further attribute should be provided to allow topics to be

weighted. The nature of the score should

of course be DTD dependent. Australia suggests the following (though

perhaps the quantum needs to

be defined better with a HyTime FCS)

\<!attlist CAph.semanticAssignment

\...

weight \-- indicates relevence to topic or certainty

of information.

0 = means probably irrelevent.

100 = means definitely relevent.

If a weight is more than 100, it can indicate extreme

or compelling relevence, though weights greater

than 100 may be deemed to be 100 by any application. \--

NUMBER 100

\>

It also might be useful for the editor to enquire of industry vendors

like OpenText and Fulcrum what weight

mechanism is suitable for ready importation of Topic Navigation Map

documents into their off-the-shelf

systems.

Alternatively, it may be desirable to have two types weights: one for

relevence, one for reliability or certainty.

This is used in some criminal and military intelligence classification

systems

On a theoretical level, this weight properly belongs to the Semantic

Assignment, since it does not define a

different type of relationship, merely an attribute of the particular

location with respect to that relationship.

So it is not correct to mimic the weighting by providing other

relationships each with an intrinsic weight

instead (e.g. the relationships \"definitely defined by\" and \"probably

defined by\") and to define a realionship

between these weighted relationships (e.g. \"definitely defined by\"

and \"probably defined by\" are related as

both being \"defined by\" relationships). Such topic schemas may be

useful, but they do not provide the ease

or open-endedness of the NUMBER system.

AUST-3

Page 4

7th paragraph beginning \" The first anchor, called the topic
anchor\....

The paragraph is made difficult to read due to the excessive use of

the words \"itself\", \"it\" and \"its\". The

intent of the paragraph would be made much clearer if it was rewritten.

**Attachment 2 - Japan**

The National Body of Japan approves on ISO/IEC JTC1/SC18 N5397 (ISO/IEC
CD

13250\) with the following comments.

\(1\) Related Standards

\"Related Standards\" should be \"Normative References\".

\(2\) CApH

\"CApH\" should be replaced with \"TNM\".

\(3\) Annex

This standard should includes an informative Annex which shows some
examples

of navigation maps.

\(4\) Architectural base declaration

This standard should includes an clause which specifies the
architectural

base declaration according to the HyTime TC Annex C.

**Attachment 3 - The Netherlands**

P.6 default attribute of agtrav cannot be correct.

**Attachment 4 - UK**

The UK APPROVES the draft with the following comment.

The UK anticipates that the effect on the current CD of changes expected
to be proposed in the HyTime TC will be considerable. Consequently, the
UK considers that it would be inappropriate to comment in detail at the
present tine.