[topicmapmail] Mapping files?

[Kal Ahmed]

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 14:01, ed nixon wrote:
> I wonder if this whole exchange isn't indicative of a gap that exists 
> between the theory and the everyday reality of TopicMaps.
> 
> I've been following this list for a number of months and I've learned a 
> great deal. However and for whatever reasons, I have yet to actualy "do" 
> a TM. One possible explanation is that, even after a fair amount of 
> reading (including 'the book') and list watching, I still can't see a 
> clear path for myself toward using TM's in my own little website world.
> 
> Jon Udell, who unfortunately wrote a misleading item, has tried to show 
> people how to do a rudimentary form of indexing/bookmarking/whatever. In 
> contrast, on this list, the level of discussion is uniformly high, even 
> elevated, but it is often less than useful for a hacker or experimenter. 
> The available TM software is either incomplete, outdated or proprietary. 
> The business model appears to be, "Believe in Topic Maps and we [the 
> consultant/vendor] will take care of the rest... [for a fee.]"
> 

As the developer of the *open-source" topic map toolkit TM4J and free
tools for working with topic maps, I do kind of take exception to what
you say. 

Really, this whole "vendor control" paranoia is getting out of hand - I
know, have worked with and have great respect for many of those vendors.
I also have no doubt that when they make suggestions and comments they
do so from the point of view not only of developers and practitioners
with experience at the sharp end, but also as individuals with a strong
commitment to the development of topic maps as an open standard. It is
about time the use of the word "vendor" as a derogatory term ceased on
this list...thats not just directed at you Ed, please don't take it as a
personal flame - more a light grilling directed at the list community in
general ;-)

> Please don't misunderstand what I say as cynical criticism. I think it 
> is simply one typical reality that exists around a new and, by some, 
> highly prized (as in this is my baby) technology. However, if Topic Maps 
> are to take off in terms of either "thought share" or market share, the 
> accessibility of the TM enterprise needs to be brought down a few 
> levels. It's fine to comment of Jon Udell's misunderstanding and 
> misrepresentation of Topic Maps;

Jon Udell did not "misunderstand" or "misrepresent" topic maps. Jon
Udell *did not use* topic maps. There is a difference - a big one.
Reread the article and you will see that he does not mention any of the
relevant topic map standards. IMHO, he simply wrote the article and used
the term "topic maps" without doing the research to find out that the
term was in use in a completely different context. So I withdraw the
"hijacking" remark which seems to have caused so much anxiety. Or
rather, I qualify it as "unintentionally hijacked".

> but it is not useful, in my view, to 
> spit over the wall in a "we versus they" fashion. Perhaps better to 
> engage Udell in some sort of constructive discussion about how his 
> O'Reilly soap box can be put to better use in the cause of Topic Maps 
> and also how his example can be improved and made more powerful through 
> introduction of the added capabilities of real Topic Maps, always using 
> the hacker/experimenter approach. If the learning curve can't be managed 
> approprietly, there is every possibility that alternative approaches, 
> whether diluted, distorted or W3C supported, will take over the field.
> 

I do not see how the learning curve for topic maps is helped in any way
by this article or by people on this list suggesting (as it seems to me)
that 

category 1
  link 
  link
  link

category 2
  link
  link
  link

is a topic map. *That* is confusing to new-comers far more than a bit of
XML syntax.

Cheers,

Kal