[sc34wg3] And yet another...

[Jan Algermissen]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> 
> * Jan Algermissen

> | Honestly, I think this is far too weak if the intention is that
> | Topic Maps as a paradigm are to have any significant impact in the
> | field of data modeling and information organisation.
> 
> That's your view.

Yes. All I try to do is to contribute to a robust and long living standard
and I neccessarily do that according to my believes. Sorry if that sounds
too aggressive at times.


> | A precise statement on the goal of Topic Maps is the *only* source
> | for evaluation of any proposed underlying model.
> 
> No, Jan, that's not a given. You may think so, but I don't. As far as
> I'm concerned ISO already defined what topic maps are a long time ago
> and what we're doing now is something else.

Ok, if ISO did that already, why is there a controversy at all? I think
that there is nothing in ISO13250 from that the TMDM can be derived. And that
there is also nothing from that the current RM can be derived. If there was,
we could just point ourselves to the spots and say: Look here, that's why I
am right and you are wrong....


> | So, why don't we define this overall goal of Topic Maps *first*?
> 
> Good question. I've been asking about this for years, and you're
> actually the first person to take up the question as far as I can
> remember.

I am glad that you recognize this and I am curios who else is interested
in this issue.


> | So, would everyone mind to write down her or his understanding what
> | this overall goal is? I have never read nor heard anything that
> | would give me a clue. Honestly.
> 
> I'm with you on this, and I think I've done it.

Can you point me to exactly where you did that. No offense intended here,
I just want to make sure I look at exactly the text that you understand to
define the overall goal.
 
> 
> | <rant>
> | There is surely more to Topic Maps then doing data integration
> | (merging) on datasets that all share a common ontology
> | (name,occurrence, class-instance, superclass subclass)?!?
> |
> | If this is all, then a published relational schema would have done
> | the job.
> | </rant>
> 
> Frankly, I don't see that either TMDM or RM do any more than this.

Ah,...and I think that Topic Maps really go wonderfully beyond this.
I just cannot find a reason to apply them if they do only the above.

Well, time will tell, I guess :-)

Jan


> 
> --
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3

-- 
Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer	                  http://www.gooseworks.org