[topicmapmail] [ANN] Topic Map Explorer Version 1.0

[Jan Algermissen]

Hi Rick,

rick coope wrote:

> The Topic Mappy ness issue. As I mentioned in the rdf interest list posting,
> we are trying to embody the basic concepts of Topic Maps, (topics with
> identity, associations and occurrences). 

For various reasons, related to my own work, I am curios what parts of ISO13250
or XTM 1.0 lead you to believe that Topic Maps's 'basic concepts' are (topics
with identity, associations and occurrences) and what your understanding is of
how these should be implemented to create a 'Topic Map application'.

I personally have allways understood (regardless of how you approach Topic Maps!!)
that the basic concept is 'merging', especially, that after an 'act of data
integration' (merging diverse data sources) all information about something
will be (virtually) accessable from a single point.

Does Topic Map Explorer support this?

Jan





There are of course limitations in
> representing things as a tree and as you and Murray have discussed this is a
> design decision. We felt at this stage that representing things as a tree
> was familiar to users but that the added level of adding the relationship
> type made useful groupings and added value and aided navigation.
> 
> We will support XTM but more importantly we will support TMQL and a topic
> map remote access protocol as these are provable and testable things.
> 
> Things such as PSIs are not yet exposed in the user interface but are
> supported in the model and are used in the peer-to-peer capabilites. Again
> scope is not something we were clear how to expose to the user and so didn't
> for now.
> 
> Although you made a loop you didn't want to, you can correct that simply by
> selecting the topic and pressing delete. You could not set a topic type as
> probably you had not created any.
> 
> Tom, we do appreciate your comments and there are things that need to be
> addressed however I feel you have been overly harsh given you haven't read
> the documatation that accompanies the product (we need to make it clearer
> where to find this) and thus you havent used it in the way it is intended
> and thus not gained the benefit it is designed to deliver. Even simple
> operations like deleting a relationship or assigning a topic type, have thus
> caused problems.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rick
> 
> Tom Passin wrote:
> 
> I have downloaded this application and tried it out for all of ten minutes.
> I am disappointed to report the following -
> 
> 1) This is not a production quality release, event though it is styled
> "verson 1.0".  I got numerous exceptions (which were at least
> recoverable) and many anomalies, including a mislabled dialog component.
> 
> 2) This is not a topic map application in any way, shape, or form.  It does
> not export or import any recognized topic map format.  Instead it exports
> rdf!  But it does not import general rdf.  Or rather, on the simple rdf
> files  I tried, it claimed success, but the display showed nothing.
> 
> The designer appears not to understand the basics of topic maps.  There is
> no way to indicate the subject of a topic.  There are no scopes.
> There are only binary relations.  The only display is a tree view.
> There are no PSIs.  I was unable to delete a relation I had created.  I
> could not find a way to change a relationship type once one had been
> created.  You are supposed to be able to designate the "type" of a topic,
> but that didn't work.  You can't relate property types to each other.
> 
> I was also able to (unintentionaly) create an loop between two topics I
> tried to relate, so that the tree view display kept unfolding the same two
> topics ad infinitum (if I had wanted to keep expanding the tree).
> 
> Of course, the fact that there was no documentation probably didn't help.
> Still, it is *inexcusable* to call this a "topic map explorer"
> and not have a *single* characteristic that disinguishes topic maps and
> makes them rich and valuable.
> 
> Setting aside the issue of whether this application has anything to do with
> topic maps per se, could it be useful in and of itself?  Setting aside
> current bugs and questionable interface features - which are numerous - in
> my view, not with just a tree view, and not with the apparent limitations of
> the internal model.  I say "apparent limitations", because it is possible
> that the internal model is richer than the app exposes (maybe there can be a
> hierarachy of association types, for examples), but one could not know by
> the current interface.
> 
> What really bothers me is that this app could give topic maps a bad name, or
> at the least mislead people into thinking that topic maps are very limited
> and don't do anything that hasn't been seen in many apps before.
> 
> I almost feel like I should apologize to the developer of this product for
> my strong words, but I mean them all.  Whoever you are, this product would
> have to go a long way before I would even consider trying another evaluation
> copy.  I don't even feel like encouraging you to try to modify and extend
> it, because the current starting point is so weak.
> 
> I hope I am wrong about my last statement, because I would really like to
> see a modestly priced, easy to use topic map application.
> 
> Regretfully yours
> 
> Tom P
> 
> --
> Thomas B. Passin
> Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
> http://www.manning.com/catalog/view.php?book=passin
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
> 
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail

-- 
Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer	                  http://www.gooseworks.org