This log is automatically generated by an IRC bot from the traffic on the #topicmaps IRC channel on the irc.freenode.net IRC server. This file has the traffic for 2003-02-06. If you have questions regarding this log, please contact larsga@ontopia.net.
| 01:22:43 | SeeTemp | SeeTemp has quit None (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)) |
| 05:03:02 | rho | rho has joined #topicmaps |
| 05:18:54 | rho | rho has quit None ("Client Exiting") |
| 08:37:06 | grove_ | grove_ has quit None (Remote closed the connection) |
| 08:58:59 | xower | xower has quit None ("Client Exiting") |
| 09:19:17 | drrho | drrho has joined #topicmaps |
| 09:28:26 | drrho | drrho has quit None ("Client Exiting") |
| 09:31:48 | drrho | drrho has joined #topicmaps |
| 09:55:54 | gra | gra has joined #topicmaps |
| 09:56:05 | gra | morning |
| 09:56:05 | larsbot | morning, graham |
| 09:56:08 | gra | whoops |
| 09:56:10 | larsbot | :) |
| 09:56:21 | gra | i even had it in my calendar |
| 09:56:41 | larsbot | but I sent you an email saying I couldn't make it? |
| 09:57:12 | gra | i only just seen that as well |
| 09:57:19 | gra | i had no connection yesterday |
| 09:57:47 | larsbot | ah, right |
| 10:01:37 | gra | are you available in about 1 hour? |
| 10:02:24 | larsbot | yes, for 45 minutes |
| 10:02:32 | larsbot | guess we can run through some issues in that time |
| 10:04:02 | gra | great |
| 10:32:36 | SeeTemp | SeeTemp has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:55:22 | berva | berva has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:55:54 | larsbot | hi there berva |
| 10:57:10 | berva | hi lars |
| 10:57:38 | berva | your dialogue with gra seems quite cryptic ??? |
| 10:57:42 | arnarl | arnarl has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:57:46 | arnarl | mornin |
| 10:58:01 | berva | hi arnarl |
| 10:58:10 | larsbot | morning, sir :) |
| 11:02:37 | larsbot | * larsbot and gra are about to discuss remaining open SAM issues |
| 11:03:20 | larsbot | anyone wanting to participate can run this query: issue-in(sam : spec, $ISSUE : issue), not(status-of($ISSUE : issue, resolved : state)) order by $ISSUE? |
| 11:03:27 | larsbot | in the online omnigator, topic map tm-standards.xtm |
| 11:03:33 | larsbot | at http://www.ontopia.net/omnigator/models/topicmap_complete.jsp?tm=tm-standards.xtm |
| 11:05:26 | berva | well ... have fun |
| 11:05:38 | larsbot | thanks :-) |
| 11:05:43 | larsbot | feel free to join in, though |
| 11:05:55 | larsbot | first issue is psi-type-instance-scope |
| 11:06:08 | berva | no time for that today, I'm afraid :( |
| 11:06:41 | larsbot | poor berva, misses all the fun :) |
| 11:08:03 | berva | just a word on the first issue ... |
| 11:08:26 | gra | hello |
| 11:08:32 | berva | hello gra |
| 11:08:37 | gra | hi |
| 11:09:11 | gra | sorry lars i'm ready now :) |
| 11:09:22 | berva | we have wondered if a ps indicator should include any declaration of relationship with other subjects ... |
| 11:09:40 | gra | lars can you tmbot up the issue here please |
| 11:09:55 | larsbot | tmbot: load: tm-standards.xtm |
| 11:10:00 | larsbot | grrrr. phone |
| 11:10:30 | berva | ... including declaration of subclassing and/or typing |
| 11:10:57 | berva | if this declaration is formally in the subject indicator ... |
| 11:12:07 | berva | I think it should supersede any local declaration of something else under any scope. |
| 11:12:23 | gra | huh? |
| 11:13:05 | berva | try to make it clear on an example ... |
| 11:13:40 | berva | say a PSI has defined the subject "apple" as a "subclass" of "fruit" |
| 11:13:56 | berva | both "apple" and "fruit" are defined by a PSI |
| 11:14:23 | berva | seems to me that if you use those PSIs ... |
| 11:14:41 | berva | you implicitly commit to this subclassing definition ... |
| 11:14:59 | berva | and that it does not make any sense to scope it |
| 11:15:39 | berva | it that better, gra? |
| 11:15:45 | larsbot | berva: I think this is a real issue. I've come across it, too |
| 11:16:16 | larsbot | the interaction of one's published subjects with those of others is something we should discuss in the TC, I think |
| 11:16:55 | berva | If we allow any kind of relationship to be declared in a subject indicator ... |
| 11:17:11 | berva | the door is open to conflicts, unless ... |
| 11:17:54 | berva | we recommend that PSIs to be integrated in an ontology ... |
| 11:18:15 | berva | and that any use of them means a commitment to the ontology ... |
| 11:18:47 | berva | with the corollary that using those PSIs consistently needs TMCL validation ... |
| 11:18:56 | larsbot | berva: there are many aspects of this. let's mark it as an issue and discuss it in the TC |
| 11:19:08 | larsbot | * larsbot and gra have 30 minutes left for SAM discussion... |
| 11:19:17 | berva | OK. I let you with SAM issues :) |
| 11:19:26 | larsbot | thanks :) |
| 11:19:35 | larsbot | tmbot: show: psi-type-instance-scope |
| 11:19:50 | larsbot | yuck :) |
| 11:20:06 | berva | good luck :)) |
| 11:20:16 | berva | berva has left #topicmaps () |
| 11:20:59 | gra | right.. then |
| 11:21:30 | larsbot | frankly, I think this one depends on the definition of scope |
| 11:21:45 | larsbot | unless we give scope a strict logical definition, I'm not sure there's much to be done about this one |
| 11:21:46 | gra | didnt we finish this before |
| 11:22:00 | larsbot | nah. we discussed many related things, but ended up no wiser than before |
| 11:22:23 | gra | oh |
| 11:22:44 | gra | what non-committal approach can we take? |
| 11:22:49 | larsbot | I guess we could say that scope interpretation in general is up to the app |
| 11:22:59 | larsbot | and that this applies to these assocs just like to any other |
| 11:23:00 | gra | yep - sounds good |
| 11:23:13 | larsbot | well, it sounds safe :) |
| 11:23:31 | larsbot | I really would like more clarity on scope, but am not sure how to achieve it |
| 11:23:34 | larsbot | or even if it is possible |
| 11:23:37 | gra | which if we consider scope to be assocs with no role defs or type then |
| 11:23:43 | gra | it can only be up to the app to decide |
| 11:23:55 | larsbot | well, it has an assoc type: scope |
| 11:24:06 | larsbot | scope is defined as "context of validity" |
| 11:24:19 | gra | i'm not sure it does have a type of scope |
| 11:24:43 | larsbot | you know it is scope, right? |
| 11:24:44 | gra | the syntactic scope contruct is just a way to indicate associated topics in unknown relationships with this assoc |
| 11:25:21 | gra | which could be used by the application to constrain if this relationship is seen by a user wihtin a given context |
| 11:25:49 | larsbot | that's one view, but it's not borne out by the prose |
| 11:26:05 | gra | anyhow - lets not go through this now - as i dont think we'll get anywhere |
| 11:26:10 | larsbot | see http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#scope |
| 11:26:20 | larsbot | true :-) |
| 11:26:38 | gra | lets put what you said regarding app interpretation of scope |
| 11:26:41 | larsbot | in any case, I guess the conclusion is that this is a problem, but it's not really specific to the published subject |
| 11:26:51 | gra | exactly |
| 11:26:55 | larsbot | yeah, let's try that as a first attempt |
| 11:27:08 | larsbot | ok, next one |
| 11:27:21 | larsbot | tmbot: show: reification-effects |
| 11:27:57 | gra | i agree with my opinion still |
| 11:28:30 | larsbot | actually, we do define superclass-subclass as being transitive |
| 11:28:51 | larsbot | but I tend to agree that constraining the allowed classes is probably a bad idea |
| 11:30:00 | larsbot | on the other hand, if people want to say "this topic represents that base name, and belongs to the class of base names" we should have a PSI for it, no? |
| 11:30:17 | gra | thats not the question is it? |
| 11:30:40 | gra | having a PSI for basenames is fine |
| 11:30:55 | larsbot | broadly it fits within the scope of the issue, I think |
| 11:31:04 | gra | requiring that implementations enforce that or some subclass of that |
| 11:31:13 | gra | is the real issue |
| 11:31:43 | larsbot | yeah, but I think it's good to take a broad view of these issues |
| 11:31:50 | larsbot | we have to make sure we cover all aspects of them |
| 11:32:17 | larsbot | so we'd then have PSIs for all the things that can be reifie? |
| 11:32:28 | larsbot | TMs, associations, roles, occurrences, base names, and variants? |
| 11:34:13 | drrho | drrho has quit None ("Client Exiting") |
| 11:36:04 | gra | hmm |
| 11:36:05 | grove | do you think the SAM should include those PSIs? |
| 11:36:18 | larsbot | it's the logical place for it, I think |
| 11:36:23 | larsbot | after all, the SAM defines those concepts |
| 11:36:30 | gra | it would 'complete' things quite nicely |
| 11:36:45 | gra | ie. show the scope of what we consider in the SAM to an extent |
| 11:36:45 | grove | having the PSIs would be useful in the case when you want to apply constraints to tms. |
| 11:37:00 | larsbot | that's true; they might have an application in TMCL |
| 11:37:11 | larsbot | working out exactly what they mean and how to use them is a little harder, but doable |
| 11:37:19 | grove | should there the be PSIs for all item types and properties in SAM? |
| 11:38:02 | gra | hmm item types - yes |
| 11:38:15 | gra | properties - i dont know - scope? |
| 11:38:19 | larsbot | properties is a harder question |
| 11:38:24 | grove | :) |
| 11:38:43 | gra | scope dont exist as a thing but does as a property |
| 11:38:55 | larsbot | it's also a question whether the concept of a base name and the base name item type is the same thing |
| 11:38:57 | gra | look i think this SAM things not going to work - we need the RM ;) |
| 11:39:05 | larsbot | yeah, right :) |
| 11:39:10 | larsbot | I'm not convinced they are the same thing |
| 11:39:25 | gra | true |
| 11:39:27 | grove | larsbot: i agree |
| 11:39:51 | larsbot | so then we have two issues: |
| 11:39:59 | larsbot | a) define PSIs for concepts (base name, ...) ? |
| 11:40:13 | larsbot | b) define PSIs for SAM model structure (item types and properties)? |
| 11:40:20 | larsbot | for a) we seem to have concluded yes? |
| 11:42:45 | gra | yep |
| 11:43:43 | larsbot | good |
| 11:44:03 | larsbot | as regards b) I like the idea (the topics are already in tm-standards.xtm), but I don't think it's important |
| 11:44:09 | larsbot | we could just put them in for completeness |
| 11:44:46 | larsbot | opinions? |
| 11:45:43 | gra | leave it for now |
| 11:46:12 | gra | hmm - somethings bothering me |
| 11:46:23 | gra | lets say we define it for the concept of a topic |
| 11:46:33 | gra | and not the sam item topic |
| 11:46:52 | gra | there is no grounding for developers to really be sure they are doing the right thing |
| 11:47:07 | gra | i know that in reality maybe there isnt a problem |
| 11:47:07 | larsbot | what do you mean? |
| 11:47:15 | gra | but conceptually there is |
| 11:47:35 | gra | well we agreed above that there is a distinction between the concept of a basename |
| 11:47:41 | gra | and the SAM construct |
| 11:47:50 | gra | the SAM is the data model for tm |
| 11:48:05 | gra | reification is done in terms of that model |
| 11:48:19 | larsbot | yep? |
| 11:48:48 | gra | thus the PSI for the concept of basename and no direct connection to those things |
| 11:48:56 | gra | thus could be seen as meaningless |
| 11:49:14 | larsbot | sorry. I don't follow |
| 11:49:37 | gra | i.e. if the PSI for the concept of basename has nothing to do with the psi for the SAM name construct |
| 11:49:43 | gra | what have we achieved? |
| 11:50:23 | larsbot | oh, I see what you mean |
| 11:50:31 | larsbot | there is an association between them, which we haven't specified |
| 11:50:41 | larsbot | X "is a representation of" Y |
| 11:50:52 | gra | yes |
| 11:51:10 | larsbot | so I think it's OK |
| 11:51:21 | gra | this then leads on to another question then... |
| 11:51:31 | gra | if x rep y and z rep w |
| 11:51:40 | gra | whats the relationship between y and w? |
| 11:51:50 | gra | do we need a complete conceptual model |
| 11:51:59 | larsbot | good question |
| 11:52:03 | larsbot | I haven't thought about that at all |
| 11:52:18 | gra | we dont have the scope to start that |
| 11:52:29 | larsbot | not really, but you do have a point |
| 11:53:01 | gra | what if we give PSIs to teh SAM items that can be reified |
| 11:53:10 | larsbot | what I could do is extend tm-standards.xtm to model this |
| 11:53:19 | larsbot | then we have a real TM to look at so that we can think about it |
| 11:53:41 | gra | ok - lets try that |
| 11:53:56 | larsbot | that's decided, then |
| 11:54:03 | larsbot | next one |
| 11:54:23 | larsbot | tmbot: show: scope-extension |
| 11:54:33 | larsbot | this one is really about what the conformance clause of the SAM should look like |
| 11:54:50 | larsbot | see http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#sect-conformance |
| 11:55:14 | gra | del/#sect-con is that a typo? |
| 11:55:20 | larsbot | nop |
| 11:55:21 | larsbot | e |
| 11:55:23 | gra | anyway... |
| 11:56:56 | larsbot | I think each of the parts of the new 13250 will need separate conf clauses |
| 11:57:05 | gra | if we have a def on set equality then we keep that |
| 11:57:10 | larsbot | we do |
| 11:57:12 | larsbot | the XTM and HyTM conformance clausees are easy |
| 11:57:26 | gra | but? |
| 11:57:41 | larsbot | the SAM one says your API must have a mapping to the SAM, and that you must detect violations of SAM constraints, and that you must do merging the same way |
| 11:57:55 | larsbot | so it does constrain processors, and only processors |
| 11:57:58 | larsbot | does that sound OK to you? |
| 11:58:06 | gra | ok |
| 11:58:27 | larsbot | good. then let's close that one |
| 11:58:30 | gra | yep |
| 11:58:47 | larsbot | tmbot: show: scope-unconstrained-rep |
| 11:59:02 | larsbot | as the TM says, this one depends on the definition of scope |
| 11:59:18 | larsbot | so maybe we should do that one first |
| 11:59:21 | gra | ok |
| 11:59:54 | larsbot | tmbot: show: term-scope-def |
| 12:00:13 | larsbot | as you can see, some work has been done on this one already :-) |
| 12:00:36 | larsbot | this may be more readable: http://www.ontopia.net/omnigator/models/topic_complete.jsp?tm=tm-standards.xtm&id=term-scope-def |
| 12:01:14 | gra | hmm |
| 12:01:21 | gra | its the individually that does it |
| 12:01:34 | larsbot | how so? |
| 12:01:57 | gra | well thats the main difference or clarification from xtm 1.0 |
| 12:02:33 | gra | topic characteristic assignments are valid for each of the subjects in its scope as defined by the application |
| 12:02:57 | larsbot | right. there are three choices here: |
| 12:02:58 | gra | or something like that would be a nice fence sitting position, or one in line with Kals comments |
| 12:03:06 | larsbot | a) "any subjects": basically what you wrote |
| 12:03:15 | larsbot | b) "all subjects": all the subjects must apply before it's valid |
| 12:03:20 | larsbot | c) keep quiet about it |
| 12:03:44 | gra | keep quiet is leave whats there? |
| 12:04:13 | gra | ok - i whats there is a active position |
| 12:04:18 | larsbot | no, basically to not say anything about whether it's "any" or "all" |
| 12:04:24 | larsbot | yep |
| 12:04:28 | larsbot | the current text chooses a) |
| 12:04:49 | gra | ok - agreed |
| 12:05:08 | gra | lets say nothing |
| 12:05:28 | larsbot | that's difficult, because then the interpretation of scoped type-instance and all that is undefined |
| 12:05:41 | larsbot | also, representing the unconstrained scope becomes hard |
| 12:05:49 | larsbot | if we choose a) the unconstrained scope is the empty set |
| 12:05:55 | larsbot | if we choose b) it's the set of all topics |
| 12:06:16 | larsbot | if we choose c) I'm not sure what to do |
| 12:06:50 | gra | long hmmmm |
| 12:06:53 | larsbot | I can see the appeal of choosing c), but I'm not sure whether it leads to more trouble down the road |
| 12:07:08 | larsbot | what would be good would be if you could read through the stuff referenced from this issue |
| 12:07:17 | gra | i think c means we can refine it later |
| 12:07:24 | larsbot | especially Marc de Graauw's paper |
| 12:07:29 | larsbot | it does, but now's the time :) |
| 12:07:30 | gra | but probably upset a few poeple who've taken a position |
| 12:07:47 | larsbot | not too many have, so I don't think that's too bad |
| 12:08:07 | gra | marc suggests ANY topics |
| 12:08:29 | larsbot | marc goes through all the alternatives :) |
| 12:08:38 | larsbot | in his paper, that is |
| 12:08:49 | gra | ok - but his comment above advocates a position |
| 12:09:02 | larsbot | yeah, but I'm not sure about the date for that comment |
| 12:09:07 | gra | was that before ot after |
| 12:09:10 | gra | ok |
| 12:09:18 | larsbot | and his reason is backwards compat, which doesn't really convince me |
| 12:10:05 | larsbot | but perhaps you can read up on it, and then we can come back to it? |
| 12:10:13 | larsbot | this issue is really *deep*, and we have to get it *right* |
| 12:11:11 | larsbot | it can wait a couple of days, I think :) |
| 12:11:25 | larsbot | I have to go soon, but I think we can finish one more issue before that |
| 12:11:29 | gra | there is a practical consideration - we cant have implementations with sets in them that contain all the topics in teh mmap :) |
| 12:11:41 | gra | yep - ok |
| 12:11:46 | gra | next issue |
| 12:12:00 | larsbot | tmbot: show: strings-as-subjects |
| 12:12:04 | larsbot | gra: practical issue: definitely |
| 12:12:24 | larsbot | I agree with you here, and I think SRN is coming round to the same view |
| 12:12:31 | larsbot | so I think we can just say: the SAM is not going there. period. |
| 12:12:50 | gra | i actually discsussed this with steve along time ago (montreal year before last) |
| 12:13:14 | gra | one approach is that the resolution of a resourcereference of a topic |
| 12:13:20 | gra | is the string value |
| 12:13:34 | gra | i.e. data:,34 |
| 12:13:43 | gra | or schema:int:34 |
| 12:13:51 | larsbot | oh, sorry |
| 12:13:55 | larsbot | * larsbot is totally messed up |
| 12:14:02 | gra | so we could just suggest a resourcereference resolution function |
| 12:14:08 | larsbot | yeah, I agree |
| 12:14:34 | larsbot | I think if we are to support this something has to be added to the text so that it's clear that this is how it works |
| 12:14:37 | gra | so we can have a computed property |
| 12:14:49 | gra | called realValue or something |
| 12:14:51 | larsbot | hmmmmmmmmmmmmm |
| 12:14:55 | gra | on a topic |
| 12:15:06 | larsbot | that might be the way |
| 12:15:10 | gra | that may be null or may return something of type??? |
| 12:15:22 | larsbot | which raises the whole type thing |
| 12:15:25 | gra | yes |
| 12:15:26 | larsbot | I think we should leave types for TMCL |
| 12:15:33 | grove | reg. term-scope-def. would not choosing the ANY alternative imply that scoped characteristics of a topic could be merged without changing the semantics? |
| 12:15:37 | larsbot | TMCL can annotate the SAM with additional computed properties |
| 12:15:38 | gra | can we just say 'Object' |
| 12:15:44 | gra | in the most generic sense |
| 12:15:53 | larsbot | grove: yes. marc's paper says as much |
| 12:16:11 | grove | larsbot: good |
| 12:16:34 | larsbot | gra: I think string is good |
| 12:16:41 | larsbot | strings can then be interpreted, if desired |
| 12:16:51 | gra | but we already have the string |
| 12:16:54 | gra | the resourcereference |
| 12:16:55 | larsbot | exactly |
| 12:17:03 | larsbot | uh, whoops |
| 12:17:08 | larsbot | the resourceref gives us the string, yes |
| 12:17:20 | gra | such as data:,34 |
| 12:17:44 | larsbot | yeah, which gives us the string "34" |
| 12:17:56 | larsbot | then, with a TMCL schema, you might get the int 34 from that |
| 12:18:18 | gra | hmm - what gives us the string 34 |
| 12:18:35 | larsbot | the typing information in the TMCL schema |
| 12:18:49 | larsbot | which says every topic of type X must have a realvalue that is an integer |
| 12:19:04 | larsbot | so you take the string you got from the URI and interpret it as an integer |
| 12:20:10 | larsbot | gra, I've got to go play squash |
| 12:20:19 | larsbot | I think we've agreed we want to support this, we just need to work out how |
| 12:20:29 | larsbot | if you want, you can write up some thoughts or even a proposal and email me |
| 12:20:33 | larsbot | (or we can discuss it again here later) |
| 12:20:41 | gra | i'll be around later |
| 12:20:43 | larsbot | failing that I'll dream up something myself and send it to you |
| 12:20:55 | gra | how many issue are left? |
| 12:21:00 | larsbot | 3-4 |
| 12:21:06 | larsbot | there's a pubsubj TC meeting at 1400 UTC, so that's why I am rushing off for squash |
| 12:21:09 | gra | would be nice to do then today |
| 12:21:14 | gra | ok |
| 12:21:17 | larsbot | would, but isn't possible |
| 12:21:20 | larsbot | tomorrow is possible |
| 12:21:20 | gra | ok |
| 12:21:22 | gra | fine |
| 12:21:52 | larsbot | goodie |
| 12:21:56 | larsbot | bye |
| 12:21:59 | gra | bye |
| 12:22:35 | larsbot | larsbot has quit None ("[x]chat") |
| 12:25:06 | grove | strings-as-subjects: using data urls as subject addresses perhaps? |
| 12:25:56 | grove | that would allow any data of any type to be represented as topics. |
| 12:26:05 | grove | i.e. not just strings. |
| 12:36:24 | tb | tb has joined #topicmaps |
| 12:41:26 | tb | tb has quit None (Remote closed the connection) |
| 13:03:19 | abcoates | abcoates has joined #topicmaps |
| 13:03:26 | abcoates | abcoates has left #topicmaps () |
| 13:04:16 | abcoates | abcoates has joined #topicmaps |
| 13:04:36 | abcoates | Hi. |
| 14:44:46 | larsbot | larsbot has joined #topicmaps |
| 14:45:59 | larsbot | hi abcoates |
| 14:47:41 | larsbot | arnarl: we need presenters (in Norway) who can talk about practical experiences with using TMs |
| 14:47:56 | larsbot | have tried NFR as well as Forbrukerr?det, so far to no avail |
| 14:47:58 | larsbot | any ideas? |
| 14:53:26 | mariyo | mariyo has joined #topicmaps |
| 14:53:43 | larsbot | evening, nishikawa-san :) |
| 15:03:09 | Subject882 | Subject882 has joined #topicmaps |
| 15:03:40 | Subject882 | Subject882 has quit None (Client Quit) |
| 15:08:36 | Subject288 | Subject288 has joined #topicmaps |
| 15:08:45 | larsbot | hi there |
| 15:08:48 | larsbot | is it suellen? |
| 15:09:19 | Subject288 | Yes it's me...Are you guys on the other channel? |
| 15:10:35 | larsbot | we are |
| 15:10:46 | larsbot | try going to this page instead: http://impressive.net/people/gerald/2000/11/irc/cgi-irc/irc.cgi |
| 15:10:59 | larsbot | set server to: irc.freenode.net |
| 15:11:04 | larsbot | and channel to #pubsubj |
| 15:11:05 | larsbot | then it should work |
| 15:13:41 | Subject288 | Subject288 has quit None ("CGI:IRC 0.5.1") |
| 15:48:11 | mariyo | mariyo has quit None ("time to call it a night. bye everyone and see you tomorrow!") |
| 17:41:21 | arnarl | larsbot: eh, sorry I've not been paying attention |
| 17:41:26 | arnarl | larsbot: presneters for what? |
| 17:41:33 | arnarl | presenters |
| 17:42:37 | larsbot | a seminar to be given to librarians |
| 17:42:49 | larsbot | it's a full-day thing, but we only need 30 minutes |
| 18:08:57 | SeeTmp | SeeTmp has joined #topicmaps |
| 18:09:36 | SeeTemp | SeeTemp has quit None (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)) |
| 18:14:39 | larsbot | tmbot: url: http://isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2003-February/000979.html |
| 18:14:53 | larsbot | tmbot: title: Clarifying the Guide to topic map standardization |
| 18:15:13 | SeeTemp_ | SeeTemp_ has joined #topicmaps |
| 18:15:25 | larsbot | tmbot: comment: An unofficial proposal for how the topic map standards family should develop from where it stands today. Comments and feedback much wanted. |
| 18:16:25 | SeeTmp | SeeTmp has quit None (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) |
| 18:17:30 | abcoates | abcoates has quit None (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)) |
| 18:18:39 | larsbot | time to go home |
| 18:18:43 | larsbot | * larsbot back in a bit |
| 18:18:46 | larsbot | larsbot has quit None ("[x]chat") |
| 18:45:38 | grove_ | grove_ has joined #topicmaps |
| 18:51:09 | larsbot | larsbot has joined #topicmaps |
| 19:05:43 | gra | gra has quit None (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) |
| 19:25:57 | larsbot | arnarl: you there? |
| 19:51:57 | arnarl | yeah |
| 19:52:06 | arnarl | at least now :-) |
| 19:53:43 | larsbot | still wondering about presenters :) |
| 19:54:22 | larsbot | do you have any ideas? |
| 19:55:17 | arnarl | You had tried Forskningsr?det and Forbrukerr?det? |
| 19:56:23 | arnarl | What about Mr. Solberg that held a presentation at "Emnekart Norge 2002" |
| 19:56:37 | arnarl | Although he is from NFR... |
| 20:02:14 | arnarl | Then there is ITU |
| 20:02:20 | arnarl | Are Mj?lsnes |
| 20:02:30 | larsbot | we did mr. Solberg already, unfortunately |
| 20:02:35 | larsbot | uh, tried, I mean |
| 20:02:38 | larsbot | ITU is a good idea |
| 20:02:41 | larsbot | I'll suggest that |
| 20:03:02 | larsbot | any other ideas? |
| 20:03:04 | arnarl | We have three other, but they do not have much "experience" with using it yet. |
| 20:03:23 | arnarl | SSB, Forsvarsbygg and Matportalen |
| 20:03:30 | arnarl | Then there is LivsIt |
| 20:03:39 | arnarl | You might find somebody there |
| 20:03:57 | larsbot | thanks. I'll list all of those as alternatives, as well |
| 20:04:04 | larsbot | do you have any names? |
| 20:04:19 | arnarl | Flemming Skahjem-Eriksen |
| 20:04:29 | arnarl | at LivsIT |
| 20:04:41 | larsbot | don't think I'll try them |
| 20:04:49 | larsbot | they're not in production yet |
| 20:04:52 | arnarl | SSB, Forsvarsbyggand Matportalen are not yet experienced in topicmaps |
| 20:05:03 | arnarl | Neither is SSB and Matportalen |
| 20:05:37 | larsbot | true, but they are at least closer in type of application |
| 20:06:00 | arnarl | Avhending is 7 months old now, but they are not very high profile og a big organisation |
| 20:06:09 | arnarl | s/og/or |
| 20:06:09 | larsbot | I know :-| |
| 20:06:39 | larsbot | you don't know any names in any of these places? |
| 20:06:49 | arnarl | Statskonsult does something with Topicmpas |
| 20:06:54 | arnarl | no, not really |
| 20:06:54 | larsbot | that's LivsIT :) |
| 20:06:56 | arnarl | ah |
| 20:07:00 | larsbot | ok, I'll pass it on like this, then |
| 20:07:07 | larsbot | who owns matportalen? |
| 20:07:18 | arnarl | Nobod yet ;-) |
| 20:07:24 | larsbot | but who is the customer? |
| 20:07:31 | arnarl | the organisation does not exist until june |
| 20:07:42 | larsbot | to find people who can speak I need *something* to grab hold of :) |
| 20:07:59 | arnarl | It will be SNT |
| 20:08:04 | arnarl | which will become mattilsynet |
| 20:08:04 | larsbot | SNT? |
| 20:08:07 | larsbot | ah |
| 20:08:15 | arnarl | Statens N?ringsmiddelstilsyn |
| 20:08:26 | arnarl | But they have not even started with TopicMaps |
| 20:08:42 | arnarl | The portal is delivered in late february |
| 20:08:46 | arnarl | Then there is Hoyre |
| 20:08:53 | arnarl | They are almost ready |
| 20:09:10 | larsbot | I think this gives us a useable list |
| 20:09:17 | arnarl | and pretty excitet about TopicMaps |
| 20:09:18 | larsbot | if it's not enough I'll suggest Stian as speaker :) |
| 20:09:23 | arnarl | heh |
| 20:09:39 | arnarl | When is the conference? |
| 20:09:42 | larsbot | march 14 |
| 20:09:52 | arnarl | ah |
| 20:09:59 | arnarl | well, then Hoyre might be an alternative |
| 20:10:31 | arnarl | They are going to be *many* people using TopicMaps |
| 20:12:15 | larsbot | and they'll be in production by then? |
| 20:21:26 | arnarl | I certainl hope so :-) |
| 20:21:35 | arnarl | T |
| 20:22:05 | arnarl | They will also make all their local organisations available on the portal |
| 20:22:09 | arnarl | as subportals |
| 20:22:45 | arnarl | But they are not as experienced as Forskning and Forbrukerportalen |
| 20:26:25 | larsbot | we'll try them, and see if we can get anything |
| 21:14:03 | arnarl | larsbot: ITU is probably your best bet. They have recently upgraded to ZTM2, and this is thus their second generation TopicMap site. |
| 21:14:31 | arnarl | eh, their second TopicMap based site... |
| 21:14:57 | arnarl | (actully it is their third and fourth) |
| 21:22:03 | drrho | drrho has joined #topicmaps |
| 21:22:44 | drrho | drrho has left #topicmaps ("Client Exiting") |
| 21:23:31 | larsbot | we'll try them first, and see what happens |
| 21:27:18 | larsbot | thanks a lot for the help, though :-) |
| 23:01:24 | eamonn | eamonn has joined #topicmaps |
| 23:02:57 | eamonn | eamonn has quit None (Client Quit) |