Re: [xtm-wg] The Future of TopicMaps.Org

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

Steve,

Sorry for the late reply! The American Bible Society and the Society of
Biblical Literature held a joint meeting at the end of April/early May
to jump start an effort to create a common XML based format for biblical
materials. That consumed (and is consuming) a large portion of my time
since your original post. I know the effort (www.bibletechnologies.net,
fully operational by next Monday) will be interested in the use of topic
maps for navigating biblical materials.

It seems like the discussion has trickled off on your suggestion and I
am wondering if there is any sense of a consensus on how the XTM effort
(as opposed to TM.Org in particular) should proceed? 

Steve Pepper wrote:
> 
> I would like to start a discussion about the future of
> TopicMaps.Org.
> 
> I believe that the time has come to rethink our whole future
> strategy for the furtherance of topic mapping. TM.Org set out
> to adapt ISO 13250 for use on the Web and that goal has been
> achieved. Whatever its flaws, XTM 1.0 is something we can all
> be proud of.
> 
> But there is more work to be done, both in terms of promoting
> the specification, building the community, and extending the
> specification to cover processing, templates, queries, etc.

I must confess I was dismayed to see the SciAm article on the "semantic"
web focus on RDF, which is certainly useful, etc., but lacks the power
(IMHO) of topic maps, as the underpinning for the "semantic" web.
Whatever one thinks about the likelihood of a "semantic" web, I don't
think there would be any serious dispute that topic maps would bring a
range of nuance that is not (easily?) possible with RDF. Topic maps may
also bring a level of complexity to the enterprise but those are both
factors that can only be judged if topic maps are at the table when
technologies for the "semantic" web are being discussed.

<snip>

> The goals of the new organization should be:
> 
> 1. Reunite the topic map community.
> 2. Put significant marketing effort into promoting understanding
>    and use of the topic map paradigm for the global interchange
>    and federation of knowledge.
> 3. Act as the custodian of the XTM specification.
> 4. Provide the forum for further development of the paradigm.
> 5. (other)
> 

Is there any serious objection to OASIS as a home for the XTM effort? I
am not currently a member of OASIS but I have been meaning to remedy
that shorcoming for some time. 

Steve Newcomb warned everyone at the first organizational meeting for
the XML topic map effort that standard's work is hard and involves
people and clashes between people. Despite that, the XTM effort has
produced something that all its participants can be proud of and that
forms a solid foundation for future work. The best way to promote,
advance and build upon the vision of Michel Biezunski, Steve Newcomb and
the XTM group is not to fall by the wayside bickering among ourselves.
That will only result in less useful technologies taking up the space
that could have been filled by the topic map paradigm and biblical
studies (my particular interest) will be poorer for it.

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu


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/