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

[Jack Park]

The heading "What XTM is" would have gone a long way to clarify issues
you raise. "XTM is not topic maps" goes not even an inch in a positive
direction; if anything, it steps backwards. Murray apparently saw
that. So did I.

Regarding your notion that the "fighting" (whatever that is) has
subsided, I suspect not, and I don't think I am alone in such
suspicions. For instance, I was accused of giving misinformation in a
speech recently, but I have it on good evidence that this was not the
case at all. People say things in strange ways. They might mean one
thing, but what they say carries potential interpretations which are
far from what they may have meant. What I said may, indeed, have been
misinterpreted and taken to be misinformation, or, another indeed,
those who would accuse me of giving misingormation are, themselves,
misinformed, ignorant, or otherwise disposed to be cantankerous. Topic
maps, in theory, are supposed to bridge such potential interpretations
and solidify world views around what any speaker means in the first
place. It seems ironic that those who call themselves topic mappers
are, sometimes, the least able to see this or, worse, behave (speak)
in ways appropriate to bridging heterogeneous interpretations.

Jack

On 10/12/05, Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net> wrote:
>
> * Jack Park
> |
> | SC34 is not an appropriate venue to engage in a pissing contest,
> | [...]
>
> Definitely not. It's up to us whether we want to turn it into one,
> though.
>
> | 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."
>
> Hmmmm. How do you feel that the entry does this?
>
> | To amplify that, the heading "XTM is not Topic Maps" carries with it
> | a negative connotation.
>
> If there is a negative connotation I'm not sure I see it, but I do
> agree that it is provocative, and that was deliberate. I wanted to
> increase the chances that the people who need to actually read it.
> It's been really bothering me for a couple of years now that people
> persist in thinking that XTM *is* Topic Maps. People have gone ahead
> and done work based on this assumption that winds up being much less
> valuable than it deserves to, simply because they misunderstood this
> simple fact. So I felt that this was a very important message to get
> through.
>
> Whether I've succeeded is of course another question entirely, but
> that was the motivation.
>
> (As a side note: I think the fact that topicmaps.org hasn't been
> updated since early 2001 probably contributes quite a lot to this.
> It's the top hit for "topic maps" on Google, which means that most
> people curious about "topic maps" get directed straight there, and
> what they find is of course no longer entirely indicative of where we
> are.)
>
> | True, nobody disagrees with the idea that XTM is a *serialization*
> | of a topic map and not, itself, a topic map.
>
> Well, that's the problem. None of us do, I think, but there's *lots*
> of people out there to whom this information comes as a rude shock. I
> enlightened one member of the ISO committee on this in Montr=E9al two
> months ago. I've seen master's theses that have done mathematical
> models of XTM (XTM, not Topic Maps). And so on and so forth. So there
> really is an audience out there that needs to hear this message, even
> if none of us do.
>
> | It is rarely *what* one says, but always *how* one says what one
> | says that counts.
>
> Certainly!
>
> | 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."
>
> I certainly agree with you here: we should have stopped fighting years
> ago, and to a large extent we have. It takes a while for people to
> discover that, though.
>
> But I think you have to help me see how this relates to my blog
> posting. It was not meant to attack anyone, and the intended audience
> for it did not include any person on this list, since as far as I know
> everybody on the list is already aware of this. Not sure whether this
> makes people breathe more easily or just reveals that I've completely
> missed how my posting invited misinterpretation.
>
> --
> 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
>