FW: [topicmapmail] Reference to Topic Maps

[Murray Altheim]

Thompson, Miles wrote:
>  
> Folks,
> 
> As a relative outsider I guess I don't know (and am quite happy to
> remain in the dark) the political reasons behind the "failure of the
> topicmaps.org website as a solid place to find information on Topic
> Maps".
> 
> Call me naieve, but surely if there is a basic consensus then I don't
> think we have reason or excuse to admit defeat on this important point.
> TMRA 2007 seems like the perfect opportunity to sort this out.
> 
> By consensus I guess I mean consensus that an authoritative sounding
> domain (with a high google rank for the word 'topicmap') that links to
> *all* the most 'current' (most actively used and being developed)
> topicmap specs that folks might need to know about. 
>
> By 'we' I don't just mean folks on the list but everyone in topicmaps
> community at large (which is getting into some pretty major corporations
> at this point).

Miles,

It may be naivete, but part of the problem is that while both yours
and Lars' points are easily understood and there's probably not even
much disagreement regarding those points, there *is* no consensus
within the community, nor has there been. There've been those who've
for their own purposes even claimed authority over the ideas, the
specifications, whatever, but I'd be hard pressed to believe anybody
at this point as being the ultimate authority on what constitutes
"Topic Maps" or what should be the authoritive source.

> There doesn't need to be agreement on what organisation shold be *the
> authoritive source* for all topicmap specs (I can see how that's a much
> more difficult problem) just an agreement on a url that we can all link
> to and (I guess) yes, enough of an organisation around the ownership of
> that domain to allow it to (a) link to the most current specs (by some
> reasonably arrived decision) whoever is publishing them, and (b) to be
> updated over time.

Yes, but don't you see that an agreement on that URL constitutes
exactly that, an authoritive source? And that there is no consensus
and are those who do not want the topicmaps.org domain to be that
source? I don't know why this should be so hard to understand, even
from the outside.

> I don't know who the "Standards Council of Canada" is, but they sound
> like nice people! Also I said before, I think the current site at
> topicmaps.org looks lovely and its simplicity is good. Just missing some
> key facts. However if topicmaps.org ain't gonna work, can 'we' not use
> another domain? (TopicMapsTheMovie.com for example). Provided everybody
> links to it, it will work. It doesn't even have to have anything much on
> the site - just a very short introduction that can then link back to
> whatever sites actually publish the specs?

I don't see that proposing a new domain solves anything. We could buy
topicmaps.tv but that's not going become by writ the authoritive source.
This can't be imposed, only proposed.

> I'm not gonna be at TMRA 2007 (as I keep saying I'm more outside the
> forest looking in) but it would really be great if this could be sorted
> out. Please?

If it were only as simple as it might seem. Healing rifts in communities
isn't something that happens overnight, from the outside, or necessarily
ever happens, nor is it something that one person can do. I learned awhile
back that despite one's best efforts things can and will spin wildly out
of control. Desiderata.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray06 at altheim.com>                              ===  = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/                                     = =  ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk               = =  = =

        In the evening
        The rice leaves in the garden
        Rustle in the autumn wind
        That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu