Re: Mapping files?

There's no ambiguity in my argument at all... infact my stance that the
topicmap standards are overly rarified has been consistent for a couple of
years now.... the specs intimidate Web developers today, and did so
yesterday... solution: simplify the specs.

Which is harder, and whether it is possible to learn from spec, but the
simple fact is XTM is not catching on beyond a small circle and repeatedly
people turn up saying "eh?"

And you're right, I do see it as an us-and-them situation. I don't believe
the topicmap specs hold any of my interests as a Web developer as a goal or
requirement.

Cheers,
    Guy.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kal Ahmed" <kal-5x+ggncFKvmB+jHODAdFcQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Guy Murphy" <guy.murphy-1kXtHpul8t0qdlJmJB21zg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Lars Marius 
Garshol"
<larsga-T14TKU2o4LgwEl7+9P3elw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [topicmapmail] Mapping files?


> On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 21:15, Guy Murphy wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > I don't for a moment believe that the SAM/XTM specifications will
> > > actually be comprehensible to your average web developer. We need
> > > different tutorials for them, probably ones which focus on the tools
> > > and the techniques.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > One that focuses on on the "tools and techniques" for the Web
developers...
> > could you get any more patronising?
> >
>
> But on 21 Feb, Guy wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> So which one is it, Guy. There seems to me to be an ambiguity between
> these two statements.
>
> If XTM is too complicated but tools, applications and tutorials geared
> towards the web developer are patronising, where is the middle ground ?
>
> > XSLT was successfully punted to the "average web developer", and I would
> > personally argue that if XSLT can be handed to Web developers, any
failing
> > to convey TopicMaps to Web developers is not the failing of said
developers.
> >
>
> I don't think that anyone suggested otherwise.
>
> > You'd have thought people would have learnt from the mistakes of SGML.
> >
> > Consider what you said above... you effectively said these specs aren't
> > consumable Web developers. If they aren't consumable by Web developers
who
> > do you envisage them being consumable by? Apart from you and yours of
> > course.
> >
>
> And you said the same yourself. Yet you say that the XSLT spec, on which
> probably a hundred times more shelf-feet of tutorials and explanatory
> material has been written, is a fair comparison. Now, I cannot dispute
> with you that XSLT is popular. But I refuse to believe that it was
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt that made it so and not the writings of such
> people as Michael Kay, Jeni Tennison, and Ken Holmann. I know that the
> spec didn't teach *me* XSLT, just as the XSL-FO spec is nothing more
> than a handy reference for me when working with that recommendation. The
> fact is that a recommendation has to be precise - ISO specs *have* to be
> written the way that they are to be precise. Standards are *not* written
> to be tutorials.
>
> So. What is it that you as a web developer believe we (and you do
> apparently think this *is* an 'us and them' situation) as a community of
> interested individuals need to do to help web developers in getting
> interested in using topic maps and getting their topic map based
> applications up and on-line ?
>
> Any suggestions would be most welcome.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kal
>
>
>