As I was posting a blog entry for today, I thought about how blogging swept around the web. Unlike RDF and topic maps.
One difference between blogging and topic maps is that I can type a blog entry and post it.
I have an immediate feeling of accomplishment (whether I have accomplished anything or not).
And, what I have authored is immediately available for me and others to use.
Contrast that with the “hold your left foot in your right hand behind your back with your left eye closed, squinting through an inverted coke bottle while humming Zarathustra” theoretical discussions. (I am a co-author of the reference model so I think I am entitled.)
Or the “developers know best” cult that has shaped discussions to match the oddities and priorities of a developer view of the world.
An emphasis on giving users an immediate sense of accomplishment, with results they can use immediately could lead to a different adoption curve for topic maps.
Neither the theoretical nor developer perspectives on topic maps have had that emphasis.
Amen, and it’s also worse than that; the bare principles of both the reference and data model are dead simple, but they are obfuscated by difficult language and the quest to be strict and standard. I don’t care if that’s what the guides are for when everyone has been focusing on the standards for the last ten years.
The bloody frustrating thing is that I teach Topic Maps to people, and they go off and take some bits and implement them in other technologies. No one gets the whole shebang. We need to explain what the whole shebang is, and the beauty of all the parts put together, like, oh I dunno, a map or something.
Comment by Alexander Johannesen — April 22, 2010 @ 7:12 pm
I seem to recall that “Topic Maps should be as easy to publish as blogs” was one of my assertions in the paper I wrote for the class you taught at UIUC in 2007. =)
Comment by Marijane White — April 22, 2010 @ 8:17 pm
Marijane, apologies! I need a topic map to the files on my present computer and archives!
Marijane said in her thoughts on the future of topic maps:
and,
The subject of Marijane’s excellent paper was London Acid Techno music, which I knew about as much about as opera. 😉
I am trying to understanding why blogging (or tweeting for that matter) is so popular? Trying to mimic either one as a form might work, but also might not. If we can feel our way along to why either one has been so successful, perhaps we can transfer that lesson to topic maps.
My personal suspicion is that we simply need to try lots of interfaces choices. We may eventually hit upon one that works for a majority of folks who use the web. We can then invent all sorts of fanciful theories about why it works and promote/defend them against other, equally fanciful theories.
Comment by Patrick Durusau — April 23, 2010 @ 8:14 am
Alexander, OK, how about a non-standard introduction to topic maps?
If you or someone else, can find an illustrator, good at drawing children book type illustrations, I would be willing to have a go at it.
Be aware that the lines on my presentation slides only align horizontally due to software assistance. 😉
Comment by Patrick Durusau — April 23, 2010 @ 8:39 am
Alexander, one question:
I assume your comment means I cannot use extended set or category theory notation in the non-standard introduction to topic maps? 😉
OK, ok, just thought I would ask.
Comment by Patrick Durusau — April 23, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
Patrick : Of course you can. It may not be *smart*, but yes, you can. 🙂
Seriously though, I would love to do a Poignants Intro to Topic Maps. My wife is a good illustrator (and wants to do a kids book), so maybe I should ask her. Hehe.
Comment by Alexander Johannesen — April 23, 2010 @ 11:58 pm
Have you seen the Topic Maps Martian Notation? I myself only encountered it a couple weeks ago. I don’t know if that means it’s not being talked about, or that I’m on the wrong mailing lists. =) It seems like a reasonable attempt to present Topic Maps visually.
http://cd.tp/TMMN/
Comment by Marijane White — April 24, 2010 @ 12:37 pm
No! Had not seen that! Thanks!
Not being discussed on any of the main topic map lists.
Do have to wonder about statements like: “A very special property says what the thing is” for subject identifier. Not any more (or less) “special” than a subject locator.
There have been several graphic notation proposals, see: Graphic Topic Map (GTM) notation.
The full example looks cluttered or “busy” as they say. Not sure I would find it helpful. Others might.
Comment by Patrick Durusau — April 24, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
Agreed, it does get busy.
I like how it represents associations and reification, but I do not like “the arrow”, that seems to be what makes it busy.
I particularly like these slides:
http://cd.tp/TMMN/tmmn15.html
http://cd.tp/TMMN/tmmn17.html
http://cd.tp/TMMN/tmmn23.html
Comment by Marijane White — April 24, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
Well, but there is a gap between representation of a single association, which could be important for discussion/approval and representing multiple associations, which share a type for example. Or role players.
Most of the notation candidates do fairly well with single constructs, more or less. Everyone has a preference.
This proposal can look “busy” but that would be even more so if it were used in a serious modeling situation.
Personally I don’t think static/2-D notations are going to be that helpful in modeling topic maps. Too difficult to hide/unhide detail that can help or obscure analysis of a topic map.
Depends on whether you are interested in analysis of topic map structure (as in the “O” word) or topic map instance data.
Comment by Patrick Durusau — April 24, 2010 @ 3:53 pm