Re: One quibble re: topicmap

Alex,

On 12/08/2011 06:08 AM, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> >> We're still waiting for people to wake up, I think. :)
>
> "Patrick Durusau" <patrick-Q/[email protected] <mailto: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 ... :)
>

True but the list has been really quiet for a long time. And I assume 
that most subscribers are like me, they are monitoring more channels 
than ever before.

The more common "interesting" threads become the more participation you 
will see in the long run. Noting that different people will join in on 
different threads, depending upon their time demands and interests.

> > 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.
>

I like the example!

Well, like most things that are interesting, its complicated.

Complicated because the people who developed dc:title don't see much 
reason to change systems they have built and understand that use dc:* 
terminology.

With equal cause, the people who have invested in foaf:* feel the same way.

As with all the people who have invested in alternative systems for 
handling the same information.

Creating yet another system, that over-arches the the existing ones, 
only creates another system to which there will be adherents.

It is what drives semantic diversity.

What I see as useful about topic maps is that it can accommodate 
semantic diversity without increasing it. (There is a theoretical caveat 
to that statement but I forego it in favor of clarity.)


> >> 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 ...
>

Books are good!

I keep thinking about using my blog posts as the beginnings of chapters 
for a book.

> > 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.
>

Depends on how you want to sell topic maps. I write a lot about edge 
cases, problems in abstract, etc., and that will interest some people.

But I also write about software that has the potential to do topic map 
like processing, whether considered to be topic map engines or no. 
Because other people when shown an application with capabilities they 
really want, can then be shown..."there's a topic map inside."

Both are necessary and valuable.

Hope you are having a great week!

Patrick

> Regards,
>
> Alex
>


-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick-Q/[email protected]
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
OASIS Technical Advisory Board (TAB) - member

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau

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