[topicmapmail] graphic language for describing TopicMaps

[Kal Ahmed]

Hi Are,

This diagramming notation looks pretty good with the examples you
provide, but as with my UML notation proposal it cannot cover every
aspect of topic map diagramming.

In developing a graphical topic map notation, I think it might be useful
to concentrate on what is being described - in general I expect it will
be topic class hierarchies and constraints on topic classes that we wish
to diagram. However, there are other aspects to topic maps too (e.g.
context as defined by scope and the use of instances to define classes)
which could be important - and so there is also a need for a notation
that can support these features too. Perhaps there is not one notation
required but several.

Cheers,

Kal

On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 00:51, Are Gulbrandsen wrote:
> On 7. mai. 2004, at 19.23, Stefan Lischke wrote:
> > But is there a standardised way of creating a digram which describes a 
> > topicmap or a topicmap typesystem which does not only include topics, 
> > it also includes association types with specified roles and 
> > cardinalities.
> 
> Good question!  :)
> 
> > How are you guys describing your topicmaps? Are you using rectangles 
> > for topics and circles for associations, how do you show that 
> > something is scopeable?
> 
> I have been looking for a good graphical notation for Topic Maps 
> ontology modelling. A graphical representation of a TM schema, - not 
> the instances.
> 
> I had a discussion with Lars Marius Garshol on this, one and a half 
> year ago, at the first Norwegian Topic Map conference. My opinion was 
> that I thought ORM might be a good match for modelling Topic Maps, but 
> he thought UML would be better. After this I started experimenting a 
> little with different ways of visualising the ontology.
> 
> I'm used to conceptual data modelling in ORM (Object Role Modelling) 
> (also refered to as NIAM), and think in some respects this modelling 
> technique is closer to the TM model than UML. (For more info on ORM 
> http://www.orm.net/ is a good source of information)
> 
> The article "Networked Knowledge Representation and Exchange using UML 
> and RDF" is interesting. In chapter 2.1, "Ontologies as class diagrams: 
> the family ontology" the author explains how to use UML to model 
> ontologies:
> http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v01/i08/Cranefield/
> 
> I think neither UML or ORM is a perfect match for Topic Maps, so I have 
> kind of developed my own diagram notation, mostly inspired by ORM. It's 
> only a sketch, but this might be a good opportunity to see if anybody 
> think it's interesting enough to comment on it.
> 
> Compared to Figure 1 in the mentioned article, I think my "TORM" 
> diagram is much easier to read. (Maybe not surprising since I made it, 
> but a more interesting question is what you think.):
> http://folk.uio.no/areg/topicmaps/graphicalTM.html
> 
> It's getting a bit too late, but I think the diagrams should express 
> roughly the same ontology. (Apart from errors and misunderstandings, I 
> don't think the author and I agree on all details of how to model a 
> parent-child association, but I might change my view after getting a 
> few hours of sleep... :)
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Are D. Gulbrandsen
> The XML-group,
> Center for Information Technology Services
> University of Oslo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
-- 
Kal Ahmed <kal@techquila.com>
techquila