[topicmapmail] Why Topic Maps (a collaborative effort)

[Kal Ahmed]

I guess that you are probably looking for topic map samples rather than c=
ase=20
studies, but I suggest that you take a look at my article on the business=
=20
uses of topic maps at Techquila.com [1]. Note the comments from developer=
s=20
(especially in the section on web applications [2]) - these are folks who=
=20
tried to build applications with only a limited time for digging into the=
=20
topic map paradigm - yet the message displayed almost consistently in my=20
research for this article was that topic maps provided them with the=20
expressive power to model what they needed for their applications.

Hope this helps,

Kal

[1] http://www.techquila.com/bcase.html
[2] http://www.techquila.com/bcase_3.html


On Saturday 01 June 2002 06:51, W.M. Jaworski wrote:
> (Responding to Kal Ahmed and Lars Marius Garshol)
>
> I would appreciate a reference to few examples that demonstrate 'that t=
he
> topic map paradigm is incredibly simple and intuitive". I plan to inclu=
de a
> section on TM in my course on System Modeling. Examples consistent with
> http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0299.htm would be very
> appreciated especially if not larger than few pages - "Topic map for
> Italian opera" by Steve Pepper is too big.
>
> TIA
> WMJ
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: topicmapmail-admin@infoloom.com
> [mailto:topicmapmail-admin@infoloom.com]On Behalf Of Lars Marius Garsho=
l
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:41 AM
> To: topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> Subject: Re: [topicmapmail] Why Topic Maps (a collaborative effort)
>
>
>
> * Kal Ahmed
>
> | There is something else which I think that many of us on this list
> | often lose sight of. That is that the topic map paradigm is
> | incredibly simple and intuitive. Things with names and resources;
> | and relationships between things.  With all the discussion of PSIs
> | and formal models and expressing logic systems (all good stuff,
> | don't get me wrong on that), it is easy to forget how easy topic
> | maps are to use. ;-)
>
> I would like to emphasize this. I think this is one of the things that
> really separates topic maps from RDF. When people look at an RDF model
> where there is no clear separation between abstract resources and
> information resources and everything is labelled with URIs it's kind
> of hard for them to grasp.
>
> In comparison, the topic map model with a distinction into topics and
> occurrences (and subject indicators vs subject resources[1]), is much
> clearer and easier to understand and apply. At least, that is my
> experience.
>
> [1] Subject constituting resources. Or whatever we will call them in
>     the end.

--=20
Kal Ahmed, techquila.com
XML and Topic Map Consultancy

e: kal@techquila.com
p: +44 7968 529531
w: www.techquila.com