[sc34wg3] Individual contribution on the U.S. N.B. position
onthe progress ion of Topic Map standards
Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:20:49 +0100
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 ?
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.
> 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.
Kal Ahmed <email@example.com>