Re: [topicmaps-comment] XML Schema for ISO 13250 TM [Was: TMs & XTM]

[Mary Nishikawa <nisikawa@fuchinobe.skk.slb.com>]

Hi Lars,

Thanks for your detailed answers. They helped a lot. Now about your 
questions...


At 09:56 AM 12/19/01 +0100, you wrote:

>If you follow this approach you should be aware that in order to view
>your topic map you will need some solution for converting your topic
>maps from your personal syntactic representation into XTM, since the
>tools currently available only support XTM.

I guess that I am hoping that there will be conversion tools, when I do 
need to convert to XTM at some point. I am still at the experimental 
stage,  using the schema  to convey my model to a design team.

>| For those using XTM to create topic maps, I see the advantages of
>| having everyone using the same dtd for interchangeability, but the
>| ability to use an abstract element declaration for each type that
>| can be used to design one's own schema to create a customized topic
>| map has advantages that shouldn't be missed
>
>What, in your opinion, are those advantages?

I find that I really do need this syntactical representation. It helps me 
create an ontology into a representation that is easier to work with, and I 
think it makes it easier for others to read and understand, since I can 
rename the topics as I like and also be specific about how I name the 
occurrences  for each topic. Probably the application that Kal described, 
the Protege plug-in, does just that if it is a set of forms  you can enter 
topics, and  occurrences and associations and constrain then.

On a personal note,  I like XML Spy 4.0's graphical interface for schemas, 
so working with a schema model is easier. My colleagues also have this 
software, so it is easier to convey my ideas through this medium.


>The people designing XTM 1.0 basically decided that XTM would be an
>interchange syntax, and no more, which meant that anyone wanting
>freedom of syntactic representation would still have it, but that the
>onus of mapping from their own representation to XTM 1.0 would be on
>them, rather than on the designers of XTM 1.0 and the implementors of
>it, which to me makes perfect sense.

I agree with this. I think that it is good to think of XTM as an 
interchange syntax. We do need some other means for the design of the map 
for an ontology, and the postings of Kal and Holger mention that tools for 
this are in the works which I am very glad to hear. Otherwise, the use of 
TMs will not spread, I think.


>| Thinking about how to create the schema helps me organize my
>| information better, which is what I am most interested in.
>
>I am not sure what you mean by this. Could you expand on it?

I will do my best to explain. This  may be somewhat subjective.

I find it conceptually easier to first begin with an object-oriented like 
definitions,  then develop a model, and after that populate the xml with 
specific content.

So going from abstractions for Topic, occurrence, association, and then 
specifying names for each topic type, specifying names for the occurrences 
for topics of a given type and restricting these topic types to particular 
association roles helps me organize my thoughts better. These are just some 
beginning thoughts.


>Actually, one of the goals behind the design of Ontopia's not yet
>released Topic Map Web Editor Framework is that you should be able to
>use it to design editing applications where the users do not have to
>know they are using topic maps (or even know XML/HTML).

Glad to hear it.

Also, Kal,  Holger, Tom, and Scott, thanks for your posts and everyone have 
a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Cheers,
Mary