Re: Mapping files?

If this doesn't happen within the standards process it will start (and I
would argue has already started) to happen outside the standards process, in
which case ownership of the term "Topic Map" will start to be taken back by
a larger community of interests.

I'm a reasonable example of a Web developer I believe, I'd like to hope I'm
on the "smart" side, perhaps not... I've been following topicmaps from
before XTM, I've even implemented a handful topicmap based applications, and
XTM still intimidates me. The notion I believe that XTM is for general
consumption is I think a silly one.

By this point in the topicmap history, given that topicmaps have not been
widely adopted I can only conclude that the concepts of topicmaps aren't
actually as hot as we thought they were, and are of little appeal outside a
small circle... I don't believe this is the case... or the standards
themselves are too wild and scary for mass adoption.

Now there may be a desire to keep topicmaps within a small circle, and
that's cool, but don't be suprised when people start comming in the back
door and walking off with bits and pieces of the topicmap bag of concepts as
suits their needs.

Cheers,
    Guy

[snip]
> 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.
[snip]