[topicmapmail] Not just Temporality in Topic Maps, but a whole approach

[Kal Ahmed]

My approach of late has been to shield users from topic maps almost
completely. There is really no reason at all why an application user needs
to know about the underlying model for representation. 

Shielding the user can be done by dumbing-down the model or by creating
higher-level (often domain-specific) abstractions on top of it. For example,
many users have a hard time getting to grips with "anything can be a type"
and "associations can have any number of roles" amongst other features of
topic maps, so defining an application that has a fixed set of types and
maybe that restricts users to binary associations only can help. On the
other hand there are some things that really require the full power of the
topic maps model to be represented and that is where using patterns and
higher level abstractions can help - e.g. abstracting the creation of
hierarchies or thesauri; or creating domain-specific abstractions.

That said, to do this effectively, a developer really has to have a handle
on the underlying model. Sure, you might be able to wing it, but if you
really know what topic maps are all about, your end-user will get a better
application. The topic maps model is your tool and you will create better
apps if you have a solid understanding of the tools you use.

I can't answer for all the people on this list, but I suspect that a large
proportion of them are similar to me - both a developer and a user. So both
of the above apply - I want to be shielded from complexity by apps that dumb
down or abstract away from the topic maps model, but I also want the full
power of the model so that I can create those apps in the first place.

Cheers

Kal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: topicmapmail-bounces at infoloom.com [mailto:topicmapmail-
> bounces at infoloom.com] On Behalf Of Simon Grant
> Sent: 08 June 2006 11:27
> To: topicmapmail at infoloom.com
> Subject: [topicmapmail] Not just Temporality in Topic Maps,but a whole
> approach
> 
> Hello again.
> 
> I think I'm starting to see how to convey where I am on this kind of
> question - so I'm replying to myself (may I be forgiven... )
> 
> For me, it is really very little to do with formality, and certainly
> nothing to do with formal logic (though I have nothing against formal
> logic). Where I come to Topic Maps from is from seeing that the TM
> approach is more *humanly* reasonable than, say, just RDF.
> (Not that I know anything significant at all about RDF.) I approach
> these matters partly from the perspective of human-computer
> interaction, and partly from cognitive science - how do we represent
> things in ways that are most closely aligned with human thinking, and
> therefore most easily understood by humans?
> 
> So really, what I would be interested in knowing is, how many people
> around here are interested primarily in semantics and human
> comprehensibility of TMs, and would like (for instance) to explore
> the ways of using TMs to represent human knowledge in ways that
> *feel* most comfortable to the people involved. My guess is that the
> majority here are interested in the formalities, the logic, the
> proofs - maybe in something close to mathematical elegance. Again, I
> have nothing against that in itself. Just that, for pragmatic
> applications, for communication, it is really useful to have
> representations that are as intuitive as possible. That is a
> different kind of constraint to the set of formal and logical ones.
> 
> Is there anywhere else where people of the kind I am talking about hang
> out?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Simon
> 
> At 06:29 2006-06-05, Simon Grant wrote:
> >I'm not (yet :-) ) an expert on Topic Maps but I do have some of the
> >same concerns.
> >I expect to be considering how TM can play a part in e-portfolio systems.
> >To me, it depends on the semantic role of temporality.
> >
> >In an e-portfolio setting, we will need to deal with all kinds of
> >records stored "out there" on various servers (who knows - blogs,
> >social software, whatever). Because it seems unnecessary and perhaps
> >undesirable to duplicate these records within a Topic Maps system,
> >perhaps they are best seen as occurrences - resources - rather than
> >topics. I don't know what sufficient reasons would be to motivate
> >representing any occurrences as topics in their own right.
> >
> >Perhaps one can distinguish two kinds of temporal "metadata" (though
> >I use that word with great caution) or attribute. One is
> >fundamentally inherent to what is recorded. In the case of a record
> >of an action, for example, the start and finish times/dates are
> >clearly to me inherent in the action. The other kind of attribute
> >could be seen as a superstructure or overlay of personal
> >significance. This would be of the type that a certain action (etc)
> >is significant as evidence towards something I want to share - say
> >my ability as a Topic Maps analyst. I see that as *not* inherent in
> >the record itself, and ideal for representing with TM.
> >
> >The confusing case - here is the semantic difference - would come if
> >I were, for instance, a historian. I might have a particular
> >interest in "The 17th Century" (or, equivalently, the years 1600 -
> >1700). This would be best represented as a topic, so that I can work
> >it in to my structures of personal significance.
> >
> >This brings me on to another angle. It may be of interest to me to
> >represent all kinds of things as topics of personal interest, but
> >alone, that remains a lonely situation. If my topics are either to
> >be shared with others meaningfully, or (perhaps even more likely) to
> >originate from a pool of common, shared meaning, then it would be
> >futile to have any hour of any day of any year as a topic. The
> >topics would not coincide enough to be of use or help or even
> >interest. It's a little like the threshold for getting into Wikipedia.
> >
> >In summary, I'm saying that my current view is that temporality will
> >be a record-centric attribute in most situations that I can think
> >of, much like location. But when a particular time period is the
> >focus of common, or potentially shared, interest, it might well be
> >worth representing a time period (or occasionally a moment, like the
> >moment you heard that Princess Diana had died) as a topic.
> >
> >I hope this makes some sense to you more experienced TMers.
> >
> >Simon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail at infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail