Re: schema.org

Hi there,

Patrick Durusau wrote:
> The market share of topic maps isn't as large as it could be but the
> statement it has "no market share" is simply false.

Based on what? One can be a bit pedantic and say that a 0.00001%
market penetration is higher than absolute zero, but who are you
trying to kid? In the context of other SemWeb technologies - which,
despite the differences between them, is where our market is - I think
it's fairly obvious just how minuscule TM is, to the point of being
irrelevant as a whole. No market share is pretty much correct,
especially the way that phrase is normally thrown around.

> Topic maps have capabilities, such as merging different vocabularies that
> represent the same subjects, which is highly relevant, particularly in an
> enterprise context.

We all know the capabilities of Topic Maps. Damnit, it's why we're
still here, still fighting this ridiculous uphill battle because *we*
believe in it, we know what it can do, we understand its importance
and we certainly love and embrace its peculiarities. But the
wonderfulness of Topic Maps has no relation to market share, actual or
potential, at least not anymore. We're a cult, really, still thinking
our way is the better way and we shall persist, even if the rest of
the world have moved in a different direction.

> It is also true that not trying will leave topic maps with less than its
> full market share.

That's why we're still here, trying. Merging, deduplication,
compounds, node saturation, it's all funky, crazy stuff that a lot of
us understand the importance of intuitively and hence we persist, but
man, I tell you, getting myself so caught up in Topic Maps is the
worst career move I've ever made. Not bad for the knowledge and
experiences that fell from it, but for the potential of employment and
applicability of the specifics to normal technology stacks. Although,
I have to wonder sometimes the implications and hints within the fact
that the old farts who started this whole thing have long since
abandoned this ship. If they did, why do I keep digging this hole?

>> We have already good tools: RDF and SPARQL. :)
>
> Yeah, right. Oh, I forgot, they can't distinguish a locator from an
> identifier unless we re-wire the web to produce 303s to cover up TBL's
> original identifier mistake. (BTW, addresses are inherently ambiguous if you
> think about it.)

Again, this is potential vs. actuality. *We* know this, we have better
solutions to it, but for some bizarre reason the world is more than
happy to apply a bunch of hacks to a faulty stack rather than doing
the right thing. (And to put it in perspective I regard RDF as a
mistake, but SPARQL as an improvement :)

> Which ignores the fact that we have 6,000 years worth of previous
> identifiers and references made using those identifiers.

Again, you put far too much trust in your fellow human-beings' ability
to understand persistent identity management issues. Most of the time
they can't get past the is_a / has_a distinction, or the difference
(perceived or potential) between an entity and a property (just like
there's a very good reason TM don't have properties). Taking the step
further and understand the *reasons* for doing the things TM does is
just not it. It's the hardest thing to explain about it to people.

"But I can create those relationships in my RDBMS, so what's the point?"

Indeed. A long spiel later of all the in's and out's of the many
layers of abstraction, the development cycle, the ontological
argument, the persistent identity reasons, the subtle difference
between internal, external and published identifiers, the standard
models, the proxy debacle, the argument from technology detachment,
and on and on it goes, all wonderfully good arguments that all make
sense ... at the end of all that, people will return to what they
know, no matter how flawed. And that's because they at least can do
that.

People aren't ready for Topic Maps, even after all these years. People
are happy to muck around in flawed systems, as long as results that
they get are compatible with their flawed thinking. Sorry to be a
dippy-downer, and I appreciate your hard work and fervent zeal and
wish that a fraction of what you point out would make a difference.


Regards,

Alex
-- 
 Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---