Re: One quibble re: topicmap

Hiya,

>> We're still waiting for people to wake up, I think. :)

"Patrick Durusau" <patrick-Q/[email protected]> wrote:
>Maybe yes, maybe no.
> I think people are doing mappings between systems all the time, but
informally.

Hehe, well I can see maybe my initial response came across a bit pompous. I
actually meant, waiting for people to wake up to this thread, since we're
the only ones talking ... :)

> I suspect people have at some level woken up and aren't interested in
giving up 1 - 3.

If by "people" you mean businesses, then I would agree, but otherwise I've
met people thoughout all the world in my travels who understand the
modelling argument when brought to them, and they're usually fascinated
with topic Maps and / or semantic data modelling as an alternative. I guess
if we truly *were* an alternative ..

> Which is why I am interested in projective topic map techniques, ones
that don't require their cooperation.

Incidentally, I've decided to write more extensively on this problem of
data modelling. I personally think the current practices (and what's being
taught in schools) are the biggest cause of all IT sorrows, and needs to be
focused on, need to be pointed out the sad state of semantic mismatching
even in hetrogenous stacks.

I've lately been giving people the following snippet for the description of
a book, and asked if they see anything wrong with it ;

   dc:title
   foaf:title

It usually hits them a little later after I point out that a duplicate
'title' is *not* the problem, and so after a bit of digging I need to point
out that that's two steps away from how easy it should be if it is going to
be a success. Most people would agree with that, I think.

>> You mean this? ;
>>    https://plus.google.com/u/0/111886865967199209050/posts/QLx3LLeseeD
>
> Something along those lines, yes. ;-) Perhaps with a few more
walk-through examples.

I think I need to write another book, or adapt my never-ending manuscript
in new directions ...

> What puzzles me is why we think that taking a subset of that, formal
logic, that will work on computers, is ever going to be as good at some
tasks as we are. Different abilities and so a different outcome.

I've always viewed Topic Maps as a fantastic way to translate between those
two worlds in a way that makes sense to both, and people seems to get
excited about the prospects of that, especially people who've spent too
many years in software development.

Topic Maps is too good for too many things, and just seems to fall into the
"too good to be true" bucket before people give it a chance.

Regards,

Alex

_______________________________________________
topicmapmail mailing list
topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail