On 2005.09.04 18:26 Jan Algermissen wrote:
http://www.rtodd.com/blog/archives/2005/08/the_trouble_wit.htm
Hmm....
True/False?
Jan
False.
1. Compares HTML to topic maps -- Not a logical comparison.
2. Notes how simple Google UI hides Google's recursive search algorithm
-- Meaning what? That topic map driven UIs cannot be simple and
intuitive? It seems to me the whole raison d'etre of topic maps is to see
how richly, speedily, and intuitively information can be delivered to a
user. I'm a believer.
3. "We have got to get better and communicating technology to the masses"
-- Perhaps, though I think the masses want convenient solutions rather
than to understand technology better (ahem). We could certainly try to
communicate better to other developers; topic maps are still unknown to
the vast majority. More TM application will be the greatest teachers,
salesmen, and ambassadors.
I agree that topic map technology is hard to absorb at first. But I think
that is because concepts like semantics, ontology, and classification
(which are old) are new to most web developers, creating a large initial
hurdle. This hurdle exists now because TM technology is still new and
being discussed; it will significantly fade (or become optional) once
there is a clearly defined "follow step 1...step 2...step 3" solution
that a newbie TM programmer can adopt and go. Patience.
Carlo Moneti
|
