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

[Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>]

Sam Hunting wrote:
> 
> [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.

No, they are not. Only for a portion of the audience, perhaps.
 
> 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.

No, I disagree most wholeheartedly. For example, much of the work I've
been doing lately has nothing to do with topic map document interpretation,
and all to do with topic map document creation. One of my principal 
difficulties with Steve and Michel's model is that were I to write
software "to it" I'd end up with something in memory, but I'd have a
very difficult time recomposing to an XTM document that looked at all
like my sources. If my main reason for using topic maps was to hook
an engine into an application framework and interpret the information
obtained, I'd probably not care what the source syntax looked like, or
whether or not I'd be able to recompose that source.

But for my purposes, I'm less interested in merging and more in XTM
syntax production. Losing my IDs, having little or no control over 
merging, etc. would be a real problem. Now I'm not the most brilliant
programmer around, so perhaps I'm missing how the PMTM4 could be used
in such a capacity.
 
> [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?

Yes, I see that all of the information that is not nodes and arcs
seems to disappear. I'm under the impression (having Eliot beat me
up sides the head) that IDs should not be required in XTM. I'm still
angry about <association> elements not requiring IDs. I'm syntax-bound
because my primary purpose (right now) is the production of XTM 
documents, not their interpretation. I hope we don't lose sight of
the *many* possible requirements and potential uses of XTM, which
is IMO what often happens as groups try to tie down a wild horse;
there's often beauty and meaning in ambiguity, even while can't 
completely discern the edges. Ever laid on your back and watched
the clouds go by?

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim, SGML/XML Grease Monkey     <mailto:altheim&#64;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025

      the wood louse sits on a splinter and sings to the rising sap
      ain't it awful how winter lingers in springtimes lap -- archy

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Do you have 128-bit SSL encryption server security?
Get VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your
Web Site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EVNB7A/c.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/