RE: [xtm-wg] Knowledge management claims re XTM (and Topic Maps...)

["Dale Hunscher" <dale@supportability.com>]

I can envision a need for domain-specific topic map standards--templates
applying to particular subject areas--which would better be specified
outside the scope of but based on the Topic Map standard, much as efforts
like ebXML are standardizing based the XML standard (but outside its
immediate scope).  In this way, Topic Maps could become a language for
specifying knowledge frameworks. I'm not sure if this is the intent of the
Topic Map specification, but it is the role I am hoping topic maps will
play.

The deficiencies in the current standard are (IMHO) primarily in the
following areas: not being able to specify the applicability of generalized
symbolic logic operations to specific topic map components, notably topic
types and association types (relations like transitivity, symmetry, mutual
exclusivity, etc.); and not being able to define abstract association types.

Dale Hunscher
South Wind Design, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Freese [mailto:eric@isogen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 8:09 AM
To: xtm-wg@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] Knowledge management claims re XTM (and Topic
Maps...)


I agree with Dale that not specifying anything is perhaps not the best
route.  While I am not advocating a change to the ISO standard, I do believe
that there are some useful constructs which could be defined, using public
subjects for example, by which some common semantics could be defined.  This
would greatly improve the interchange and interoperability of topic map
based data - no matter what application it is used for (indexing, knowledge
representation, etc.).  Holger Rath's talk at Montreal was a step in the
right direction, IMHO.

<!-- ****************************************************************
Eric Freese                                    Email: eric@isogen.com
Director - Professional Services - Midwest     Voice:    651 636 9180
ISOGEN International/DataChannel               Fax:      651 636 9191
1611 West County Road B - Suite 204            WWW:    www.isogen.com
St. Paul, MN 55113                                www.datachannel.com
***************************************************************** -->


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale Hunscher [mailto:dale@supportability.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 11:24 AM
> To: xtm-wg@egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] Knowledge management claims re XTM (and Topic
> Maps...)
>
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with Ms. Wrightson's concerns. As a lurker for the
> most part on this list, I have felt similar concerns and not
> expressed them.
>
> I hear people saying that the way to solve this problem is to shy
> away from
> including any meaningful semantics in TMs (e.g., transitivity,
> symmetry; the
> ability to specify abstract association types for prototyping and
> validation
> purposes; etc.), leaving all that to be specified by
> applications. There is
> a danger in that approach that is at least as great as specifying
> too much;
> from the perspective of the work I am doing as a consultant for
> pharmaceutical publications, TMs contain too little information
> to be useful
> for our purposes (merging knowledge/content bases, unifying lexicons and
> thesauri, etc.)
>
> Hand Holger-Rath and Steve Pepper did a paper a while ago called
> Topic Maps:
> Introduction and Allegro that contained some suggestions for TM templates
> and validation
> (http://www.topicmaps.com/content/resources/mt99/hhr-stp.pdf). Rather than
> repeat what they said there, I would simply second their concerns and hope
> that XTM can address them.
>
> It sounds like your meetings went well, and rest assured I will be on here
> the sidelines cheering you on!
>
> -Dale Hunscher
> South Wind Design, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wrightson, Ann [mailto:Ann.Wrightson@sweetandmaxwell.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 11:09 PM
> To: 'xtm-wg@egroups.com'
> Subject: [xtm-wg] Knowledge management claims re XTM (and Topic Maps...)
>
>
> Hi folks...
>
> I don't know if you discussed this at all in Montreal, but I am very
> concerned that XTM should encourage/facilitate good working-with the
> long-standing academic knowledge-engineering community by
> a) being (very) moderate and realistic in its claims for XTM *by
> itself* as
> a knowledge modelling technique - XTM's main strength could well be in
> providing the "hooks" which enable the wide range of established knowledge
> modelling techniques to link to Web resources, and also in
> providing simple
> exchangeable *static* representations of (some) such models;
> b) working with folks who have done eg semantic modelling for
> years, rather
> than trying to (re)invent ways of doing it without the benefit of that
> experience.
>
> This concern is based on back-of-room conversations at XML Europe, where I
> found myself trying to bring some experienced knowledge engineers
> "back down
> off the ceiling", and into a more realistically appreciative frame of mind
> regarding Topic Maps, after some rash claims from the podium...
>
> Cheers
>
> Ann W.
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>




To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------<e|-
ZixMail enables you to easily send secure email to anyone with an email
address. Use ZixMail instead of overnight deliveries to save time and 
money. Download free at
http://click.egroups.com/1/8134/4/_/337252/_/967054970/
--------------------------------------------------------------------|e>-

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com