[topicmapmail] graphic language for describing TopicMaps

[Patrick Durusau]

Murray,

Murray Altheim wrote:
> Patrick Durusau wrote:
> 
<snip>

> 
> 
> Well, I'm pretty sure it was Steve that wrote that paper, but I
> don't have any handy references to it now. It was basically on
> the idea that everything in the model could be a Topic, that we
> didn't need associations, that the association was simply another
> kind of topic characteristic.
> 
I think we may be mixing Steves?! ;-) No matter, the idea is clear.


>> Curious as to why you don't think there is a benefit in this 
>> "simplification"? (Which I think is already present in ISO 13250, but 
>> obscured by later practice in particular syntaxes and proposed 
>> processing models.)
>>
>> I fail to see the advantage to the extra steps.
> 
> 
> These two last paragraphs seem to be at odds with each other, so
> I'm not sure how to respond. I am not an advocate of making any
> substantial changes at this point simply because we have an entire
> community (which is hopefully growing) based on several renditions
> of an ISO standard, plus software systems and hundreds of ancillary
> documents written around the current model(s). To make a profound
> change as this would suggest would to me not worth the resulting
> instability and confusion. The current model works as it is.
> 

Sorry if my comments were unclear.

You characterized it as a "simplification" to which I was responding 
that it is already present. In other words, not a "simplification" of 
the current standard (ISO 13250 as written, not proposed amendments 
practice) but simply using the standard as written.

Second comment, "I fail to see the advantage to the extra steps." was a 
reference to the earlier statement that you reify an association with a 
topic. That seems to me to be an "extra" step as opposed to treating an 
association as a topic.

I guess what I am saying is I don't see the change. If your argument is 
that as a matter of practice, that is now XTM has been processed, that 
is a different (to me) argument than saying the suggested understanding 
is a change in the standard. I don't have any particular ax to grind 
about how associations are reified but I don't think compelling all 
topic maps to obey the "rules" of one syntax is particularly helpful.

Does that help? (Not in terms of agreement but making my mangled prose a 
little more straight forward?)

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick



> Put it this way: I don't want to have to rewrite all of my software,
> and I'm certain nobody else does either, simply to alter the Topic
> Map model in a way that doesn't actually provide much in the way
> of benefit. If it's just looking at things through a fun house
> mirror, I prefer without the mirror. (Or, if you prefer, if I'm
> already looking at them through the mirror, I'll stick with the
> mirror.)
> 
> Murray
> 
> ......................................................................
> Murray Altheim                    http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
> Knowledge Media Institute
> The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .
> 
>   The Resume of George W. Bush
>   http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html
> 
>                    The sleep of reason brings forth monsters -- Goya
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
> 


-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!