Re: [topicmaps-comment] TMs & XTM [Was: skills to create topic ma ps]

[Scott Tsao <skst4xml@yahoo.com>]

Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> The main difficulty in hand-authoring topic maps is
> not syntax [...]
> The key points are these, in my view:
> 
> 1) Finding the ID values for previously defined
> topics, so they can be
> referenced [...]

This seems to be a feature that could be added to a
more capable TopicMaps authoring/editing tool.  For
example, I would expect a good XML authoring/editing
tool provide the feature of allowing a user to select
a pre-defined name (of elements or attributes) when
constructing either an instance or schema (xsd or dtd)
document.

> 2) Deciding how to model various kinds of
> information, ie., occurrences vs
> associations [...]
> 
> 3) Creating your ontology and being very clear about
> when something is an
> instance vs. being a subclass of another topic [...]

These seem to point out a need for (graphical)
modeling of TopicMaps.  For example, I wonder if using
Protege along with TMTab plug-in would provide a
higher-level abstraction of TopicMaps that can be
reviewed and refined without worrying about the
syntax.  (ref.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/topicmaps-comment/200112/msg00034.html)

However, I recall in a past thread there was a
discussion of the adequacy of using UML to model
TopicMaps instances, and the conclusion seemed to be
fairly negative.  So, I wonder if there is a better
way to model TopicMaps graphically.

Thanks,

Scott


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com