RE: Mapping files?

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 16:04, Michel Biezunski wrote:
> > 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.
> 

I actually think that XTM hits the 80/20 spot almost exactly. I think I
have said that before on this list, but it is worth repeating.

In my experience, I find that the core concepts of the topic map
paradigm, are readily understood by almost anyone regardless of their
technical background. Even my mother can understand topics, occurrences
and associations!

It is true that there are other features of topic maps which are more
complex. Such as variants, scoping and, for some people, typing. However
the modularity is already there in XTM. If you don't understand typing,
you can create a topic map with no typed topics, ocurrences or
associations. If you don't understand scoping, don't use <scope>. If you
think variants are just extra bloat for your topic map, you don't have
to use them.

What is needed is more work like Holger's topic map handbook and the
other tutorials that are available (mainly for free); and more
discussion of practical topic mapping problems and solutions as
occasionally appear on this list. 

What is not needed is to reduce topic maps to headings and links.

I truly believe that XTM is good stuff. It is an example of a good,
clear specification with an increasing amount of support in terms of
free tools and freely available tutorials and examples. In short, it
ain't broke, so please don't fix it.

Cheers,

Kal