[sc34wg3] www.topicmaps.com (and topicmaps.org)

[Hunting, Sam (LNG-EWR)]

One obvious way to stop fighting would, again, have an orderly way to
preserve community artifacts and histories. I don't have any issue with
Labelling deliverables from long ago as "superseded" if that's what the
OCLC process or one like it does. And I'm afraid I'm all out of piss on=20
This particular matter.

[Apologies for the bizarre capitalization which Outlook is "helping" me
With.]

-----Original Message-----
From: sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org
[mailto:sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org]=20
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:29 PM
To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] www.topicmaps.com (and topicmaps.org)

SC34 is not an appropriate venue to engage in a pissing contest, but I
certainly agree with Murray's point at your blog "...we just confuse
our audience and make it seem that Topic Maps are even more mysterious
and inscrutable than they already are... not a good thing to do." To
amplify that, the heading "XTM is not Topic Maps" carries with it a
negative connotation. True, nobody disagrees with the idea that XTM is
a *serialization* of a topic map and not, itself, a topic map. It is
rarely *what* one says, but always *how* one says what one says that
counts.  In our community, fragile as it is owing to the combination
of towering intellect, towering ego, and killer competitive instincts,
we end up getting blogged as a failing community. Then, we shoot
ourselves in the foot, sometimes with something as crude as a small
howitzer. I always thought I was the loose cannon in this community;
there isn't room for more than one of those in any such community.
It's no wonder that, when I asked a developer working for an enormous
database maker how soon they would start including topic maps in their
mix, his reply was "just as soon as you guys stop fighting."

Jack

On 10/12/05, Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net> wrote:
>
> * Jack Park
> |
> | [...] I am quite amazed at the blog entry referenced by Lars-Marius
> | to the topic maps list, the entry in which XTM is referenced, and in
> | which the notion of XML topic maps come into question. I cannot help
> | but think that the topic maps community is giving the world all the
> | appearances of a terribly dysfunctional family.
>
> What do you mean? I thought it was generally accepted and agreed
> within the Topic Maps community that XTM is just the syntax, and that
> Topic Maps is something else. (This regardless of which of the TM?M
> camps one might belong to.)
>
> If you think I wrote something wrong or unfortunate I'd be interested
> to hear what and why. I may have been unclear, and this is something
> I'd really like to see straightened out once and for all, so any help
> in that would be very welcome.
>
> --
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
sc34wg3 mailing list
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3