[topicmapmail] Mapping files?

[Kal Ahmed]

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 16:46, ed nixon wrote:
> Michel Biezunski wrote:
> >>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 use=
d
> >>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".
> >=20
> >=20
> > I am in favor of what you call "unintentionally hijacking topic maps".=20
> > I think this is exactly what is needed for making topic maps fly
> > and get widely used.
> >=20
> > Although we tried to develop a model which would be simple and
> > straightforward, the remarks on this list lead me to think that
> > the Topic Maps model as currently existing and embodied in the=20
> > XTM/HyTm syntaxes might be *too* rich and *too* complex to=20
> > correspond to various needs which would be happier with a lighter=20
> > definition of topic maps. That for me is a strong argument in
> > favor of a modular perspective on topic maps, which would not
> > contradict or invalidate anything that currently exists, but
> > would make the learning curve simpler.
> >=20
> > Just a thought.
>=20
> I've been stuck in the house with a late winter cold for the past three=20
> days, I see a chance to blow out the pipes at the gym so I'm in a bit of=20
> a rush; the state of my health may have affected the tone of my earlier=20
> email. If so, my apologies. In addition, I wanted to wait a bit before=20
> responding to Kal and to anyone else who waded in on this. But... quickly=
.
>=20
> I don't think TM concept or the specification itself over complex and=20
> I'd be leary of trying to simplify or modularize it. What I found=20
> difficult at the start was bridging the gap between the abstraction, the=20
> patently great idea of a TM and the application to my littel web world.=20
> Yes, I could see TM examples and applications, but I was still having=20
> trouble fitting it all into my personal hands-on experience. I couldn't=20
> figure out, given my limited time and technical prowess, how to show and=20
> tell a Topic Map on my own, self-designed, self-maintained website.
>=20

It is still something of a struggle. Perhaps the problem is that many of
us topic map application developers have pretensions to the corporate -
we want to make tools for big organisations to manage their information
in better ways, or for publisher to improve the value of their
information by making it more accessible and so on. Perhaps the problem
is that there is no one out there looking at the development of
applications for "the little guy", the people like you and me who pay an
ISP to host our 20MB of webspace.

If only there were enough hours in the day (or days in the week) I would
love to get round to addressing those. In someways, TMTab is intended to
help the "little guy" create topic maps  - although one still has to
understand the topic map paradigm to use that tool successfully.

> I've looked at and admired the Tequila software, but I think about the=20
> technical assumptions for use: comfort and working knowledge of the Java=20
> programming language; knowledge of Apache component installation,=20
> configuration; some webserver knowledge; in addition to TM design and=20
> implementation expertise. That's my perception and, if it's right, it's=20
> a big chew.
>=20

I guess so - many of the TM4J developers *are* comfortable with J2EE
development and grovelling through semi-intelligible configuration files
to get the "=C2=A3$%^ing thing to work...in fact I think that most of us do
just that for a living.

Of course, we would welcome the input of people with another POV to come
into the project and make suggestions for new applications; contribute
documentation in the form of FAQ answers or HOWTOs when they have
managed to figure something out and so on. I hope that the TM4J project
will continue in its rate of growth and that more of those increasing
numbers of users will be persuaded to move over into the realm of
contributor - not all contributions have to be in code.
=20
> In an ideal future, what would serve someone like me is probably an=20
> application that, given some design guidelines for defining META tags in=20
> my site pages, using Dublin Core for example, there is an application=20
> that will crawl around my site and -- presto! -- there is a "site map on=20
> steroids" that happens to be a Topic Map with links in place and the=20
> smarts to repeat the process periodically or whenever the content=20
> changes. I wonder if this is feasible? I wonder if people would pay=20
> money for a tool like this? I wonder whether the economics of the=20
> proposition would make it worthwhile to build?
>=20

Yes, yes, and yes. In fact I think it is just the kind of thing that
would make a really good tool built with TM4J. How do you fancy learning
a bit of Java on a practical project ? ;-)

> I have to go. I look forward to seeing responses with eyes clear of blear=
.
>=20

Ah - and it being Friday evening I am off to indulge in rather less
healthy activities.

Have a good weekend,

Kal