Re: Using TM to help define the future of XML

Neal,

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 09:32 -0800, Neal McNamara (nealmc) wrote:
> Patrick,
> 
>   It's worth remembering--by those old enough and still possessing sufficient memory--that the adoption of SGML as a military requirement by the US DoD 30 years ago (MIL-STD-38784) was the single greatest impetus to its widespread adoption. 
> 
>   The required application of Topic Maps by DoD logisticians and purchase agents could be a boon.
> 

+1!

And I do remember the adoption of SGML by the DoD. ;-)

But, my point is that we need a use case that furthers objectives that
are shared in the DoD community.

I think that will sell topic maps faster than trying to swim upstream
against embedded interests as it were.

I don't know that the following would be a use case but it illustrates
the sort of investigation we need to do in selling topic maps.

Remember the US position that was overrun in Afghanistan? After all the
surrounding people left during the night? 

Although the placement of the position may now seem obviously wrong, I
am sure it was an honest mistake at the time.

Now imagine a topographical map of the area that is combined with a
topic map showing fire lanes and areas under direct control. Now we ask
that the map to show areas under direct control, enemy control and
unknown control, in associations with elevation (all armies prefer high
ground to low - Sun Tzu). 

The error in placement becomes really obvious. 

Or creating associations between satellite and Western coordinates with
the terrain as experienced not only locals but troops serving in
country. How much local experience is lost with regard to the people and
terrain with each unit that rotates out? 

Topic maps aren't the only way to capture that sort of information but I
think it is one of the better ways. 

The trick is going to be finding the tight spots where current
information systems fail or where topic maps can make a qualitative
different in results for command or troops on the ground. 

Hope you are at the start of a great week!

Patrick 

> Have a great day & a better tomorrow,
> 
> Neal McNamara
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "What I am questioning is whether "[others will] enthusiastically
> appreciate this expressiveness!" ????
> 
> Example (from history): One (alleged) used case for topic maps was to
> eliminate duplication of documentation for military systems. The
> production of which was a line item in every contract and even if the
> documentation was the same, the military was still paying for it.
> 
> Question: Some people wanted this to save money, be more efficient, etc.
> 
> Now, let's look at who did not want it:
> 
> 1) Vendors of military systems, who by simply running a new cover page
> or making minor changes, were charging full rate for a completely new
> set of documentation. Consider that the documentation for an F-15 weighs
> in at more than the aircraft and you get an idea of the documentation we
> are talking about. This is pure gravy.
> 
> 2) Contract managers, who the more contract $$$ they manage, the more
> important their office, themselves, etc. 
> 
> 3) The employees and contractors of the vendors who produce the
> documentation for which the vendor charge yet again, increasing the
> importance of the contract managers office.
> 
> And so on and so on.
> 
> So who are we going to sell this topic map system to, exactly? "
>