[sc34wg3] Individual contribution on the U.S. N.B. position onthe progress ion of Topic Map standards

[Kal Ahmed]

I detect a leading question, but I shall rise to the bait anyway - at
least partially :-)

I can load a topic map created by Ontopia into TM4J (and vice-versa) - 
I can exchange information between multiple applications that implement
topic map processing as described by ISO 13250. I can describe existing
classification systems; thesaurii; CMS meta data and even relational
tables in terms of topic map constructs (as defined by ISO 13250).

That means I can exchange information between applications successfully.

There is much more that can be done based on existing ISO 13250 - it
needs time to be embedded in the information ecosystem and time for
research to be done and to push the boundaries of what the standard
provides. Why does *ISO 13250*  need to do more ?

Cheers,

Kal

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 21:24, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Kal Ahmed wrote:
> 
> > ...and
> > people are managing to create all kinds of systems and to interchange
> > information successfully.
> 
> 
> Kal--
> 
> this is no attempt to start an argument here, the follwoing question
> is meant seriously:
> 
> You say that people manage to interchange information successfully. Can
> you be more explicit what that means? 
> 
> 
> Can you give an example (an existing project or so)?
> 
> 
> What does it mean to *fail* to interchange information successfully?
> 
> 
> What does it mean to overcome this failure and how do especially
> Topic Maps solve contribute to overcoming this failure?
> 
> 
> Or in other words, what part of Topic Maps make it possible to
> "interchange information successfully"?
> 
> 
> Again: no intention to be picky, I just like this stuff straightened
> out because I am not entirely clear about this myself.
> 
> 
> Jan
-- 
Kal Ahmed <kal@techquila.com>
techquila