[sc34wg3] to advance Topic Maps

[Michel Biezunski]

> This competitor stuff is nonsense. empolis is a major competitor=20
> of ontopia, as is mondeca. While I cant speak for mondeca's=20
> position - I can represent my personal position, probably Holgers=20
> and  the position of empolis when I say that in no way do we 'the=20
> competition' see that any one vendor is 'owning' or 'preventing=20
> competitors from gaining access to the standard'.=20
> =20
> empolis and I'm sure mondeca desire a solid cs based standard=20
> that means when I de-serialise an XTM document or interact with=20
> topicmap software that whats there is consistent.

Let's first consider this mail as your personal
position. Let's not infer about others' opinion.

The fact that vendors want a solid cs based standard
is one thing.
The fact that information owners want a solid knowledge
representation is another thing.

Both things are not contradictory. The power
-- and the raison d'etre -- of topic maps is to=20
be able to do both at the same time. Ignoring one=20
of the two aspects is destructive, including
for the vendors. The vendors should care about=20
what their customers want to do with their=20
product, i.e. meaningfully interchange=20
information.

Michel
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Michel Biezunski
Coolheads Consulting
402 85th Street #5C
Brooklyn, New York 11209
Email:mb@coolheads.com
Web  :http://www.coolheads.com
Voice: (718) 921-0901
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=20