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

[Martin Bryan]

Murray

> What you call a "lack of adequate XTM documentation" is a bit unfair. The
> specifications are not even finished, much less has anyone had a chance to
> write the definitive guide. We're working as fast as we can -- all in good
> time. If you wanted to volunteer to fill in any holes in the
documentation,
> we're all ears. BTW, there still isn't really any decent documentation on
RDF.

I agree with your comment re RDF, but would remind you that I have fully
documented my schema, with examples, though I didn''t start until the week
after the Swindon meeting, was working unaided in a period when I had no
"free time" and have handled all ISO 13250 features. Sorry, I do not
consider my comment "unfair".

>But if XTM takes off (and I fully
> expect it will, regardless of your advocacy), then removing your name is
> probably not a good business decision. I hope you understand that
inclusion
> of your name in the Acknowledgements was done as a "thank you" to you for
> your valuable input, not as an endorsement.

I do realise - I did not threaten, I said you "laid yourself open" - which
you do if anyone references my recent e-mails

>And rest assured, if your name is
> removed, you'll still receive my thanks.

And they are very much appreciated, believe you me.

> I'm not sure of the distinction you're making between "interchange" and
> "interwork." These mean rougly the same to me (absent any differentiating
> information).

Interchange means "copy and use". Interwork means "reference and use". The
point is that I should be able to reference topic maps without having to
create a copy. I want to be able to query your topic maps and have your
return all occurrences you have found on topic X in scope Y, where scope Y
is defined in a third topic map. (For the semantic web you do not want to
have to create in-memory maps of the whole of a large set of huge topic
maps.)

> Having provided a full and public review of XML Schemas to the W3C working
> group, I'm quite aware of what their strengths and weaknesses. I see
almost
> no need for XML Schemas in the world of topic maps, in fact I only see the
> danger of them being abused by companies with proprietary agendas.
Everything
> we need is easily supplied by the current syntax, a template language, and
a
> query language. None of the XML "equivalents" for the latter two will do,
as
> the processing model for topic maps (either ISO or XTM) disallows common
XML
> views of topic map documents (merging, scoping, etc. must be accounted for
> properly, as described in our XTM Processing Model spec).

I'll tackle this in my response to your next message.

> > What I am also trying to point out to people is that XTM is only a stop
gap,
> > and a relatively inefficient one at that. You should be aware that its
not
> > just XTM I am complaining about, but RDF, which is also not efficient
enough
> > for the long-term management of semantic
>
> Well then, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I've been spending the
> last week or so finishing up a parser that builds an XTM topic map from a
> Cyc ontology file. I've almost got the Linear Topic Map (LTM) to XTM
parser
> finished, and I'm looking at other mapping syntaxes. Perhaps next I'll try
> RDF. Given that and the existence of Nikita's functional ISO-to-XTM XSLT
> stylesheets, I can't see why anyone would continue to argue about syntax.
> Syntax is irrelevant. Anything that can fit into the ISO 13250 processing
> model (as elucidated in the XTM Processing Model spec) can "interwork." If
> I can mix Cycorp ontologies, LTM, RDF, and four or five ISO 13250-based
> DTDs, what more can you ask for? The proof is in the pudding, and we're
> already eating it.

Glad to hear you've got the thing up and working. Now all I want to see is
support for it in a) off-the-shelf web browsers that are widely supported
and b) general purpose, low cost, tools for generating XML documents.

Until then I'll continue to argue that one approach fits all is not ideal.
I'll also continue to argue for the use of features that I consider should
become standard for future generations of web browsers, which inlcude XLink,
XML Schemas and W3C's query language (when we finally get that - remember
the Paris meeting I started many moons back!).

Martin