Rath, Holger (empolis KL)
Fri, 7 Feb 2003 18:39:59 +0100
Sam Hunting [mailto:email@example.com] wrote:
> > Before can talk about brand extension Topic Maps have to become
> > a brand at all - let's work on that first!
> We are!!!!
> But we need to execute in the present *and* build for the
> future at the same time. I see Michel as trying to do that;
> it's constructive.
I have two problems with this "brand extension" idea:
(1) This is on the meta level about branding:
Have you ever noticed what happens when a company (e.g.,
a car manufacturer like Porsche) droped some news about
a new version (e.g., new version of the Boxter): nearly
nobody wants to buy the 'old' (= current) version -
everybody waits for the next (better?) version. This is
not really about branding, more marketing & sales but I
hope you get the point.
(2) This is about "Topic Maps" as a brand: We have two
groups of people in the TM community with two different
views on what is behind the "Topic Maps" brand. One group
says it is what 13250:2000, XTM, and the SAM define. The
other groups says it is more, it is what's behind 13250,
XTM, and SAM - something we currently call the RM. So my
problem/question is: Which of the two meanings of the brand
"Topic Maps" do you want to extend?