[topicmapmail] XTM Datatypes [Was: Adding weigths to associations]

[Martin Bryan]

Murray

> I don't know why you'd want to ruin an interchange format by
> allowing all manner of markup, making the bar to entry and interchange
> quite a bit higher than necessary, unless you're keen on keeping the
> ability to use topic maps within a small cult of experts.

I was reading the message in parallel with SAM as referenced in Lars
accompanying message, which is not just about XTM: it is expected to replace
13250. However, XTM is being toted as the only interchange format therein.
What I am keen to ensure is that those of us who need to be able to use
topic maps within other applications can still do so. At present it is not
clear that SAM will allow this type of application to survive. Hence my loud
shout.

 > Look at RDF
> -- it's extremely difficult for a designer/programmer to implement a
> system that can intelligently import "wild" RDF content. Or look at
> HTML -- what a mess.

Yet HTML is the most successful document interchange format ever, and RDF,
if we are to believe W3C, will invoke a Semantic Web! (The problem with RDF
is RDFS and its extensions. RDF did too little, as did HTML.)

>Then look at DocBook, or XTM. It's nice being
> able to rely on *something* in this industry, and I think having a
> fixed notation for interchange is a good thing.

I hate having to drop those bits of applications that do not fit with fixed
DTDs. Try writing an ISO standard with DocBook, or using XTM to identify
whether a topic covers a particular period you are interested in.

Martin