[sc34wg3] A new idea for the Topic Maps standard

[Nikita Ogievetsky]

Kal Ahmed wrote:

> At 08:54 05/02/2003 -0500, Michel Biezunski wrote:
> >I've got a new idea I'd like to propose to discussion.
> >
> >It comes from the fact that there are several attempts
> >of syntaxes out there which aim to do things quite
> >similar than topic maps. I have two examples in mind:
> >XIL (the Extensible Indexing Language) and another one
> >is XFML (the eXchangeable Faceted Metadata Language). I
> >am sure there are others.
> >
> >There are 2 attitudes we can have:
> >
> >1) Tell these people their stuff is limited, not appropriate,
> >that there is something much better called Topic Maps and that
> >*THE* XML syntax is called XTM. It's the only one. Period. If
> >people are not doing it, it means they don't know what's good.
> >
> >2) Tell them that no problem these syntaxes can be interpreted
> >as topic maps and open for wider interchange. Doing that would
> >ensure that Topic Maps will be able to fulfill its objective,
> >i.e. to merge knowledge, furthermore regardless of which syntax
> >it's expressed in.
> >
> >I favor attitude #2. I think this is the winning proposition because
> >we set up topic maps for the long run and we preserve the values
> >of the major concepts and the way they can be processed.
>
> I agree with you on this.

Totally agree.

> >This has one consequence, that may help solve one problem
> >that Lars was pointing at (what to do with HyTM?): Make XTM
> >as well as HyTM non-normative *examples* of how topic maps can
> >be interchanged. By doing that, we provide hospitality for other
> >future syntaxes, designed by others, to be part of the topic maps
> >interchangeable world. Speaking of how the standard is structured,
> >it may also have the consequence to make SAM a non-normative technical
> >report.
> >
> >I'd be interested to know what you think about this idea.
>
> I think that topic maps still needs at least one normative interchange
> syntax in order to be a standard that is taken seriously by those that
> develop the software to support it and in order to give the users of the
> standard the confidence that they will be able to exchange data between
> different implementations of topic map processing systems.

I agree with Kal here.
If I do remember well, XTM was started as XML Interchange syntax for Topic
Maps.
So this is(!) a normative interchange syntax.
However I was always telling people that they are free to implement
their systems anyway they want as long as they can translate their
information
into XTM syntax for interchange purposes.
People usually feel comfortable with that.
On the other hand, if XTM syntax is not powerful enough
we should look into making appropriate changes.

Here is how I see RM and SAM positioned:
The translation from somebody's structured information into
XTM syntax should be done on the RM level.
SAM is a RM conformant processing model for XTM.
(application model with processing rules)
When people have information expressed in various syntaxes,
they should first convert it to XTM syntax based on RM,
then process this information based on SAM.

Lars suggests translating on the SAM level but I do not think that this is
such a great idea.
After all, SAM is a processing model for XTM, is not it?

Alternatively people can implement their own RM compatible processing models
and process Topic Maps the way they want.
But why? - given a set of SAM enabled open source and commercial tools.
Besides if they do some proprietary staff they will have a hard time
interchanging with the rest of the world.

All the best,

--Nikita.

> Perhaps there is an argument for modularisation - making the interchange
> syntax(es) separate normative specifications , but I would be wary of
> having no normative interchange syntax specification at all.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
>
>