[sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question
Lars Marius Garshol
Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:11:47 +0200
Forwarding on behalf of Gabriel, who still doesn't have posting
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gabriel Hopmans <email@example.com>
Date: Jul 19, 2005 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: xml:id RE: [sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question
I definitely agree with the point that is more problematic to work
with XTM then with something like CTM. We worked both with XTM and
with LTM and for several projects you are just quicker when working
with XTM. LTM and in the future CTM is not that difficult too learn.
Moreover you also can use CTM as AKO ontology layer to auto-generate
full blown Topic Maps. So two ways to shorten development phases.
One of the complaints that we hear quite often from some potential
customers is that "they can't/don't want to live" with XTM. So the
following nice sentence what Robert Barta wrote:
"CTM will define the entry barrier form people coming into a TM market."
might have a good chance.
On 7/19/05, Bernard Vatant <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> ... is not well-formed LTM, I guess. You need a specific parser to find out why, right?
> Are such parsers available?
> You say a lot of people use LTM. How do they cope with that? Are there LTM
> editors/parsers/validators around?
> Sorry if those seem silly questions, but lack of answers prevented me to use LTM so far.
Maybe the above convinces you to use LTM/AsTMa=/CTM ?
---------- End forwarded message ----------
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >