RE: Mapping files?

> Jon Udell did not "misunderstand" or "misrepresent" topic maps. Jon
> Udell *did not use* topic maps. There is a difference - a big one.
> Reread the article and you will see that he does not mention any of the
> relevant topic map standards. IMHO, he simply wrote the article and used
> the term "topic maps" without doing the research to find out that the
> term was in use in a completely different context. So I withdraw the
> "hijacking" remark which seems to have caused so much anxiety. Or
> rather, I qualify it as "unintentionally hijacked".

I am in favor of what you call "unintentionally hijacking topic maps". 
I think this is exactly what is needed for making topic maps fly
and get widely used.

Although we tried to develop a model which would be simple and
straightforward, the remarks on this list lead me to think that
the Topic Maps model as currently existing and embodied in the 
XTM/HyTm syntaxes might be *too* rich and *too* complex to 
correspond to various needs which would be happier with a lighter 
definition of topic maps. That for me is a strong argument in
favor of a modular perspective on topic maps, which would not
contradict or invalidate anything that currently exists, but
would make the learning curve simpler.

Just a thought.

Michel

===================================
Michel Biezunski
Coolheads Consulting
402 85th Street #5C
Brooklyn, New York 11209
Email:mb-yd/9RoSvfpGakBO8gow8eQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web  :http://www.coolheads.com
Voice: (718) 921-0901
==================================