RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Tuesday conference

["Bandholtz, Thomas" <thomas.bandholtz@koeln.sema.slb.com>]

Title: RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Tuesday conference

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Vatant [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:19 PM
> To: tm-pubsubj-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] Tuesday conference
>

...
> The political arguments I've already stressed. Locking PSIs
> in Topic Maps realm and
> technology is certainly not a good move if we want
> wide-spread and quick adoption. ...

Topic map is an intelectual asset we can be proud of. TM is the best solution for PSI. I don't really see any alternative. Let's make them folks currently ouside our "realm" integrate TM into their own thinking. They have nothing equivalent. Sure they have other important contributions we should learn from and use, but they have nothing like topic maps.

> If we use Topic Maps for definition of Published Subjects, we
> are putting them on the same
> "left-hand" cliff of the chasm, and all difficulty may
> disappear indeed, because it's not
> a bridge anymore.

I see no chasm - to me it looks like a green valley, nice place to stroll around.
Well, if there is a canyon in between, let TM be the bridge!

> ... like being the
> fool searching for his keys
> on the lightened side of the street - because it's easier to
> search in the light -
> although he knows he lost them on the dark side.

Hm... i did not loose any key. Whom are you talking about?
 
> PS : We shall overcome ... :))
Surely we will.

BTW. Did you see this ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/ist/docs/fp6_knowledge_technologies_announcement.doc

Thomas Bandholtz
CM / KM Division Manager; XML Network Moderator
Competence Center Content Management
SchlumbergerSema
http://www.schlumbergersema.com

Kaltenbornweg 3
D50679 Köln / Cologne
Germany
+49 221 8299 264