[sc34wg3] implementer's comments on XTM, 23.2.2003, Rev1.15

Murray Altheim sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:27:28 +0100

Robert Barta wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:48:34PM +0100, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>>* Robert Barta
>>General Comments:
>>|   - I do not like much IDs appearing someplace and not the other. An
>>|     XML id is something VERY(!!!) internal and something very
>>|     XMLish. The kludge of addressing topics with #topic-id is what it
>>|     is, a kludge. It does not point to a topic but to a textual
>>|     representation of a topic within a document. There could be
>>|     millions of this.
>>I'm afraid you'll have to explain a bit more here, Robert. What is the
>>problem, and how would you prefer to solve it? I suppose you are
>>referring to the source locators?
> Yes, this is more a general rant and can be easily ignored. I was simply
> wondering that the IDs - actually an XMLish way to address a particular
> part of an XML __DOCUMENT__ is "used" (read abused) to address now a topic
> or particular parts of topics.

The entire XTM project came about because the creators of the
topic map paradigm wanted to make TM relevant to the largest
computing community in the world: the Web. So, XTM is XML and
was designed for interoperability on the Web; Web linking into
an XTM document is predominantly by ID. XTM is simply one
application of the topic map paradigm for the Web. As such, it
fulfills its design requirements. I'm not sure why this deserves
a rant from anyone. If you don't like XTM or XML, create a
non-XML profile of topic maps for your own use.

I think most people who've come in contact with XTM think it's
an appropriate design. There's always somebody unhappy with some
aspect of any design, but as has been said here many times, it
hit the 80/20 point pretty well.


Murray Altheim                  <http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/>
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK

    Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!