[topicmapmail] Announcement of XML Schema for ISO 13250Topic Maps

[David RR Webber]

Message text written by Patrick Durusau
>***
When was the last time you had to go "looking under the hood" of a Word
document to determine the source of an error?

The creator(s) of topic maps would need that level of access to debug an
interface but one assumes they would have more sophisticated tools for that
process.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Boy am I glad you raised this!  I really think we should rely on M$ to
build
the single dominant product in the TM space - with 90% of the market.
This really solves all issues of interoperability on the spot. 
Of course if we are going to have lots of vendors instead - then 
implementation issues will arise.
<<<

>
The problem with "angle-bang" interfaces is that they may actually
slow the adoption of XML and related solutions due to the learning curve
for
the average user. If the angle-bang syntax is not relevant to their task,
what
advantage is there in asking users to learn it? Users range from the data
entry
clerks and subject matter specialists to the topic map creators. Since they
have differing needs in terms of access to the underlying markup, why
should
they all have the same interface?
<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let's not be too tough on users.  Alot of them are much smarter than given
credit - and they appreciate being able to review underlying semantics 
when it is important to their process.   See our HR-XML implementation
to see how the angle bracket tags context is exposed to the end user.
(http://www.goxml.com  and Test Drive link).

Notice if they can see such detail they can resolve semantic disconnects.

I also see that IT staff need at least a fighting chance of debugging the
'MS Word' level of the world.  If you import a RTF into Word and it does
something really ugly - would you like to be able to fix that?

Thanks, DW.