Multidimensional vs. One-dimensional info WAS Re: [xtm-wg] A challenge on "the graph"

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

[Bernard Vatant]
> |
> | They say indeed : Topic Maps are so simple. Why did you complicate
> | them with all that unnecessary twisted syntax ?

[lars] 
> I have to agree with Murray here: because that is where the value of
> topic maps lie. What is interesting about topic maps is the features
> they provide _beyond_ what a simple graph model does. 

These points of view are orthogonal.

Topic maps, taken as "angle brackets", have no value whatever. (This is
the classic argument that *ML doesn't *do* anything. In fact, it does
not.)

Topic maps, taken still as "angle brackets" are intrinsically linear --
one starts at the document element and processes until one comes to the
end.

Only with the topic map angle brackets are somehow processed -- that
is, only when knowledge is actually interchanged, through "the graph"
-- do topic maps have value.

[lars]
> Those who created the topic maps model painstakingly raised some
> features up out of the generality of the graph model (occurrences,
> names, ...). For the processing model to smudge all that back
> together would be counter-productive, I think.

Smudge? I don't understand this. Are you claiming that there is
information loss when the angle bracket syntax is transformed in
processing into the graph?

[bernard]
> | The nodes of the same type have the same color. So have the arcs of
> | the same type. Some TM elements will be nodes, some other will be
> | arcs. There will be basic rules on the colors of nodes and arcs,
> and
> | that's all there will be ...

[lars] 
> Where will the URIs be? If they are left out we will be left with
> something that is too vague to serve as the basis for
> implementations.

Lars, I'm missing something obvious here, so please elucidate.

My thinking has been that "where the URIs 'are'" is exactly the sort of
thing that vendors should want to compete on -- 'where' they 'are' is a
storage issue. If a URI is used to establish the subject identity of a
topic, for example, is it not sufficient to specify that it does not,
without specifying "where" they are?

S.

=====
<!-- "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
     - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations -->

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption!
Grab your copy of VeriSign's FREE Guide,
"Securing Your Web site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KVNB7A/e.WCAA/bT0EAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/