FW: [topicmapmail] Reference to Topic Maps / topicmaps.com

[Markus Ueberall]

Hi everyone,

I'm personally quite happy to see this thread some four months in the run-up
to TMRA07, because it
    (a) emphasises/reminds of the importance of this topic and also supports
the conversation regarding recent activities (cf. the blatant ad below) and
    (b) 'urges' to organise a panel discussion  :)

(NB: In order to follow the discussion and to group the individual points of
view, I simply merged the previous postings prior to commenting below.
Hopefully, the line breaks don't get mangled...)

Miles Thompson wrote:
> By consensus I guess I mean consensus that an authoritative sounding
> domain [...] 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).
> 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. [...] Provided everybody links to it, it will work.

Actually, this is exactly the intention behind the "Topic Maps Wiki
Project", cf.
<http://www.topicmaps.com/tm2007/posters/tm07-tmwp-poster_final.pdf> and <
http://www.infoloom.com/pipermail/topicmapmail/2007q1/006826.html>. 
 
Murray Altheim responded:
> [...] part of the problem is that [...] there *is* no consensus within the
> community, nor has there been.
> [...] 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.

Though I, too, used the term "authoritative source" at first, I guess Miles
really referred to "a primary source of information" here (in other words,
some sort of 'hub'--cf. Kleinberg's paper "authoritative Sources in a
Hyperlinked Environment"
<http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/auth.pdf>--where authoritivity
stems from content only.)

Of course, such a source (ideally, a single site) has to reflect different
points of view in order to be accepted. In 'TWiki terms' <http://twiki.org>,
this could be taken into accounts by introducing multiple (color-coded,
cross-referenced) 'subwebs'--which, e.g., could separate 'protected'
self-portrayals or even references to commercial products/services from
standards related open discussion pages.

Steve Pepper:
> Everyone - and I really mean *everyone* - who is actively involved in the
> development of the Topic Maps standards agrees that the "ultimate
> authority" and "authoritative source" of Topic Maps are the standards
> themselves. No lack of consensus there.

In other words, a short disclaimer/link on individual 'subjective subweb
pages' should be enough to remind readers of the underlying points of view
and (according to 'standard wiki etiquette') should allow for links to
'dispute pages' (cf. Wikipedia).

"Thomas":
> maybe the most promising direction would be to enhance the wikipedia-
> entry. that page is in a rather bad condition either. and it's second on
> googles list. and prominent. [...]
Alexander Johannesen:
> [...] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_map. [...] none of us can claim
> any authorship over it.
Bernard Vatant:
> Definitely let's go the Wikipedia way. Like it or not, Wikipedia entries
> are the de facto main Published Subject Indicator for anything now.
> Indeed the current article is in bad shape. [...]
> - A good article in English will be the basis for articles in other 
> languages - multilingual outreach is important
> - History of the concept, standardisation and its various avatars can
> hopefully be put down from a NPOV (Neutral Point Of View). I volunteer to
> moderate this if needed :-) [...]
Lars Heuer:
> [...] the location should be changed to
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_Maps>.

I agree that the Wikipedia entries should be considered the starting
point--however, in my opinion, the aforementioned different points of
view/'facets' really call for a dedicated Wiki/CMS, regardless whether it is
based on a 'traditional' engine (e.g., TWiki) or Topic-Maps-powered (e.g.,
ZTM, CeryleWiki, Topincs, to name a few).

Miles Thompson concluded:
> [...] TMRA 2007 seems like the perfect opportunity to sort this out.

*Exactly!* Maybe some of the participants could also give a short
demonstration of their respective prototype/their take on this topic
following the panel discussion? I promise to set a good example and submit a
joint poster/demonstration proposal for TMRA07 during next week...

Steve Pepper:
> [...] The plan is to use [topicmaps.com] for community building
> activities, including the promotion of Topic Maps-related conferences. We
> are looking for volunteers to help with this, and would welcome a
> discussion of what the exact content should be, what technology we should 
> use, etc.

Well, maybe one of the ideas/prototypes mentioned above may even serve as a
starting point for the topicmaps.com site...  ;)
 
Ad astra, Markus