Re: [xtm-wg] topic map complexity, and references

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

Jon Jermey & Glenda Browne wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am an indexer and librarian, fairly new to the concept of topic maps. I
> have three queries.

Good to see another person from the library community peering into our
otherworldly world. I've been an advocate of getting input from the library
community, so I'm happy to see your message.

> Firstly, I have read the TAO of Topic Maps at the Ontopia site. Are there
> any other good introductory articles you would recommend.

I'll leave this one to those who might promote their own articles. Most
of the vendor sites I've seen have some measure of these types of articles.
Jack Park will be publishing a book soon about topic maps, and it will
include some introductory material if memory serves me correctly.
 
> Secondly, as a librarian i have seen the triumph of simple schemes over
> complex, perhaps conceputally much better schemes (eg PRECIS was a scheme
> that defined roles and links, and allowed automated generation of
> alternative access points, but it failed to catch on because it was too
> time-consuming and took too long to do). I'm wondering whether topic maps
> might suffer from similar problems.

I agree wholeheartedly. While complexity can often be beautiful, there are
times when keeping a technology simple and accessible are very important.

> Thirdly, one of the examples used was of operas. It seems to me that some
> domains are relatively easy to map, and this might be one. Other domains are
> extremely difficult to structure, and topic maps might be beyond them.

I don't see this really as such a big problem unless one believes in 
universals. There are many communities that have attempted to create
a universal ontology for their domain, and they have usually failed
because they couldn't gain consensus, the result often being a fracturing
of the community itself. 

One of the things I like about topic maps is that inherent in the 
technology is the ability for conflicting views to live side-by-side. 
So for example, there are a number of existing zoological taxonomies, 
and to my knowledge it's unlikely that any two actually agree with 
each other due to errors of data and/or transcription, scale, community
disagreement over changes due to DNA-based reorganization of  
subhierarchies, etc. This doesn't stop me from creating a topic map of
*one* of those taxonomies, and this is useful in and of itself. I've
actually almost completed doing this with the ITIS taxonomy [ITIS], 
a partnership effort [1]. And more importantly, this doesn't stop me 
or anyone else from using a different taxonomic system as a basis for
another zoological taxonomy topic map. In fact, using scoped base 
names, it'd even be possible to (with relative ease) map between two 
or more such taxonomies, so that XTM can form a bridge between varying
"opinions." BTW, I was able to write a converter from ITIS to XTM in 
about two or three days.

If you attempt to follow along with some of the discussions here, you
might be led to believe that topic maps are convoluted and complicated.
That's because we're a mix of convoluted and complicated people. We've
got everyone from musicians and physicists to who-knows-what. But I
believe the underlying technology isn't too complicated to be useful.
Hopefully over the next few years it won't grows by leaps and bounds
to be too complicated to gain some real traction. The lesson of the
success of the Web should be something we all keep in the back of our
minds -- HTML was almost mind-numbingly dumb and forgiving enough for 
almost anyone to be able to use it, and that's one of the main reasons 
IMO that we use it rather than any number of its forebears.

Or three bears. (which bowl was the right one?)

Murray

[ITIS] http://www.itis.usda.gov/
[1] of the the Smithsonian Institution, USDA, NOAA, USGS, EPA, National 
Forest Service, National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), 
Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Conabio (Mexico's National
Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity).
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim, SGML/XML Grease Monkey  <mailto:murray.altheim&#64;sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025

     i am going to see if i cannot reform insects in general
     i have constituted myself a missionary extraordinary 
     and minister plenipotentiary and entomological to bring
     idealism to the little struggling brothers -- archy (1927)

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/2U_rlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

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

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