[topicmaps-comment] [sc34wg3] PMTM4 and XTM Layer 1.0

[David Dodds <drdodds42@hotmail.com>]

I second the sentiment that Thomas expresses about desiring a collection or 
repository of topic maps from which we could test of programs and ideas.

I ask the members to have a look at a topic map, which I used in the WROX 
book XML Meta Data, Ch 11. It is available at
ftp://ftp.wrox.com/professional/4516.zip
once unzipped open ch 11 and look at the data set called circuittm.xml.

That is a topic map which would be constructed using the tool I describe in 
the book. What I would appreciate from the readers is a constructive 
critique of that topic map. One of the things I would like to do in my work 
is to have an SVG based diagram with embedded RDF and Topic Map meta data. 
Topic maps which could be used to "understand" the picture (its contents, in 
the ch 11 case it was an electronic circuit schematic) could be generated 
from the SVG "diagram"/picture. At some point in time Iwould also like to 
explore the opposite direction and that is to create an SVG dagram from a 
topic map. (It would have to be pretty "rich", possibly like the "as much 
graph as hierarchy" stated by Thomas.

Several people have asked for me to publish the "missing bits" from the 
book. I have contacted WROX and they have said that's ok and so I am in the 
process of making ready those chapter/parts on a website. I will
post the links as they become available. Thankyou for the interest.

cheers
David Dodds



>From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>
>To: topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [topicmaps-comment] RE: [sc34wg3] Re: PMTM4 and XTM Layer 1.0
>Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 19:01:12 -0400
>
>[Steven R. Newcomb]
>
> > Maybe this will help to clarify:
> >
> > I'm *not* saying that people should *ignore* the
> > assertions that are made about a subject when they're
> > trying to understand that subject.  I'm saying that if
> > there is no subject indicator, and therefore the
> > assertions made about a subject are all that there is
> > to indicate what the subject is, and if those
> > assertions are made by more than one author (as will
> > likely be the case in any sort of collaborative
> > environment), then it's very likely that the exact
> > nature of that subject will become multiple and/or
> > ambiguous.  When that happens, the whole Topic Maps
> > paradigm becomes unreliable and essentially useless.
> > The paradigm simply doesn't work unless there is
> > exactly one utterly changeless subject for every topic.
> >
> > Worse: in a collaborative environment that doesn't
> > require collaborators to provide good subject
> > indicators, the paradigm can *seem to be working* when
> > it's really *not working*, and that can be very
> > dangerous.
> >
> > I'm just making a plea that providing every topic with
> > a good subject indicator (i.e., a subject indicator
> > that is compelling, precise, and unambiguous) is an
> > essential policy when attempting to produce useful
> > topic maps by means of collaborative processes.
> >
>
>Steve, I see what you are saying and I agree - sort of.  I think that
>getting such pristine and unambiguous subject indicators acoss a
>collaboration ( or across an uncollaborated web) will be harder than you
>seem to think.  I'm not ready to concede that topic maps will be as fragile
>in this regard as you are suggesting.  Even such an apparently understood
>concept such as "property" can be up for grabs - people on one of the RDF
>lists have just been talking about differences between the DAML and RDF
>notions of "property", just as an example.
>
>Well, probably the best thing is for lots of people to get good working
>experience with useful topicmaps.  Then we will start to see the real 
>issues
>emerging.  Which brings me to a different question.
>
>Are there any substantial topic maps out there that have some real depth to
>them?  By that, I mean depth of hierarchy, or even better, that they would
>be more of a network than a hierarchy.  Most of the maps I have seen do not
>contain many associations linking things, one to another to another.
>
>For example, Lar's big topic map on free XML software.  You have one or two
>top level categories, then a topic for software, then one or two
>associations to get its author, etc, then you are done, nowhere to go.  
>This
>is very appropriate for that kind of map, but I'm interested in looking at
>maps with a lot more depth, with cycles, and so on.  We need maps like this
>to really explore navigation - this leads to that leads to that other thing
>leads to ...
>
>Anyone?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Tom P
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp