[topicmapmail] Are Facets Really Simple After All?

[Kal Ahmed]

Carlo,

Its a bit difficult for me to say whether it is useful for a non-Java
programmer, because I am one ;-) Seriously though I think you might find
it useful. The Velocity language is really easy to learn and using
TM4Web/Velocity as a web application, you get instant feedback on
changes you make to the page templates so it is quite easy to do build
the pages that you want.


Cheers,

Kal.

On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 03:58, Carlo Moneti wrote:
> Kal,
> 
> Yes, I guess it does. Cool. I haven't checked out TM4Web, yet. Is it useful 
> for a non java programmer?
> 
> Cheers,
> Carlo Moneti
> 
> 
> On 2003.11.30 17:22 Kal Ahmed wrote:
> |Carlo,
> |
> |Take a look at [1]. I think it does everything you propose. Plus the
> |PSIs are directly supported by TMBrowse (part of the TM4Web/Velocity
> |application).
> |
> |Cheers,
> |
> |Kal
> |
> |[1]
> |http://www.topicmapcentral.com/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=FacetedClassificationPattern
> |
> |On Sun, 2003-11-30 at 20:06, Carlo Moneti wrote:
> |> On 2003.11.30 11:25 Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> |>
> |> > If this is a reasonable way to look at facets, then I do not see why
> |> > using facets would be different in any essential way from classifying
> |> > using a single hierarchy.  A given topic could be related to one of the
> |
> |> > faceted terms, say "location", by an association called, perhaps,
> |> > "hasFacet".  You would find out which particular facet tree that
> |> > "location" is in by walking up to the root of its tree to arrive at
> |> > "Geography", whose type would be "Facet".  Of course, a real
> |> > implementation would use some kind of shortcut to avoid actually
> |walking
> |> > the tree each time.
> |> >
> |> > Is there something I am missing here, or is it really this simple?
> |>
> |> I have come to the same conclusion as Thomas. Just last night I resolved
> |> the following topic and association types:
> |>
> |> topic type to define a facet (#facet-root)
> |> topic type to define a facet category (#facet-category)
> |> association type for parent/child relation of facet-categories
> |> (#facet-parent-child)
> |> association type for topic as member of a facet-category (#facet-member)
> |>
> |> This goes a long way in addressing my concern (perhaps needless) about
> |> polluting topic info with facet info, which seems to me like application
> |> infrastructure detail rather than true topic info. True topics won't be
> |> polluted in their occurrence data (as Murray also worried); and facet
> |> hierarchies, being differentiated from others, can be processed
> |distinctly
> |> (turned on or off, as Murray pointed out). Also, many facet hierarchies
> |may
> |> be generic enough to have a double use as non facet-related hierarchies.
> |>
> |> This approach is convenient in that it addressess easily and intuitively
> |(I
> |> think) the mapping of facet info from XTM to a relational database that
> |> some application will query to generate a faceted navigation experience.
> |> Now, perhaps this isn't ambitious enough. Perhaps there is in theory a
> |way
> |> to inform a topic map and topic map engine of an equivalent of the
> |> aforementioned application logic and db queries, so that the topic map
> |> engine can generate a faceted navigation experience. This, however, is
> |> beyond my knowledge. Is anyone working on this, or theorizing such
> |> potential?
> |>
> |> Cheers,
> |> Carlo Moneti
> |> _______________________________________________
> |> topicmapmail mailing list
> |> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> |> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
> |--
> |Kal Ahmed <kal@techquila.com>
> |techquila
> |
> |
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
-- 
Kal Ahmed <kal@techquila.com>
techquila