Re: Mapping files?

Kal Ahmed wrote:
[...]
> > 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.
[...]

As I've said to Kal recently, I don't think we even missed at 81/19:
I'm not advocating any changes to XTM at all. I do think we need to
make some clear and simple documentation, a roadmap of what the RM,
SAM, XTM, PSI, and ISO 13250 specs accomplish, i.e., what a developer
needs to read and understand in order to build TM-compliant tools, and
finally, see publication of TM-compliant open source tools, ideally,
with good examples (ala Xerces).

But this points out that XTM alone may not be alone considered
adequate for building topic map applications for the web. I hope
this is not true -- if XTM is *not* Topic Maps for the Web, IOW,
if in order for Topic Maps to be accepted and used, developers and
users need to read and understand four or five specs (some quite
complex and using language very unfamiliar to them), we're in real
trouble. If by "subset" we can deliver a single *specification*
that tells a web developer everything they need to know to build
a topic map engine or application, then we've truly hit the 80/20
point. That was what I'd hoped we'd done with XTM 1.0.

Our biggest barriers right now to acceptance are understanding (in
clear and simple language*, geared for implementors) exactly what
it takes to build a compliant topic map engine, and secondly, what
it would take to build a compliant topic map application. I realize
some were critical of Annex F of XTM 1.0, but that IMO was a very
reasonable attempt to write something distinctly functional for
developers to follow as a set of rules rather than have to understand
an abstract model or some unfamiliar language. Along these lines, an
XTM test suite with documentation is an *excellent* idea.

Murray

* eg., no mention of "reification" unless a tutorial is supplied in
  similar, simple language.
......................................................................
Murray Altheim                  <http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/>
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK

    "In Las Vegas Mr Gates also demonstrated a prototype
     fridge magnet which can be programmed to receive traffic
     reports, sports results and advertisements from local
     restaurants using the same FM signal as the wristwatch."
                                 -- The Guardian, 10 Jan 2003.