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 2003-04-20. If you have questions regarding this log, please contact larsga@ontopia.net.
| 03:41:11 | mariyo | mariyo has quit None (Remote closed the connection) |
| 05:24:07 | FloK | FloK has joined #topicmaps |
| 05:42:59 | FloK_ | FloK_ has quit None (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) |
| 06:16:21 | mariyo | mariyo has joined #topicmaps |
| 06:29:57 | GWa | GWa has joined #topicmaps |
| 06:48:00 | drrho | drrho has joined #topicmaps |
| 07:46:03 | mariyo | mariyo has quit None (Remote closed the connection) |
| 07:59:55 | GWa | GWa has quit None ("leaving") |
| 08:42:15 | the^chosen^one | the^chosen^one has joined #topicmaps |
| 08:42:20 | the^chosen^one | the^chosen^one is now known as erica |
| 08:43:10 | FloK | FloK is now known as FloK-away |
| 08:43:45 | erica | hi drrho |
| 09:09:58 | mariyo | mariyo has joined #topicmaps |
| 09:14:46 | erica | hi mariyo |
| 09:39:27 | mariyo | hi erica :) |
| 09:39:35 | mariyo | you still there? |
| 09:40:14 | mariyo | i'm busy working on the National body comments - lost in concentration :) |
| 09:40:30 | mariyo | this is not easy! |
| 09:42:34 | mariyo | erica: if you see that i am online and i don't reply just send me a private message; i get a telephone ring and it brings me to attention. |
| 10:17:58 | erica | erica has quit None () |
| 12:17:43 | drrho | drrho has quit None ("Client Exiting") |
| 13:00:02 | the^chosen^one | the^chosen^one has joined #topicmaps |
| 13:00:07 | the^chosen^one | the^chosen^one is now known as erica |
| 13:00:27 | mariyo | hi erica :) |
| 13:00:32 | erica | hi mariyo :) |
| 13:00:39 | mariyo | did you get the templates? |
| 13:00:45 | erica | have not check my mail |
| 13:00:47 | erica | * erica checking mail now |
| 13:01:37 | erica | nope did not get any mail |
| 13:01:49 | erica | * erica -> dinner |
| 13:28:18 | mariyo | erica: i sent the mail out again and cced myself. it seems ok. check your esantosa bond mail. |
| 13:33:47 | erica | erica has quit None () |
| 15:53:51 | FloK-away | FloK-away has quit None (Remote closed the connection) |
| 16:28:32 | tmkal | tmkal has joined #topicmaps |
| 16:41:29 | larsbot | hi there, kal |
| 16:41:46 | tmkal | hi larsbot |
| 16:42:21 | tmkal | i was wondering if you were actually online :) |
| 16:42:30 | tmkal | wonder if you could have a look at something for me... |
| 16:42:59 | larsbot | sure |
| 16:43:03 | tmkal | http://www.techquila.com/tmsinia.html |
| 16:43:24 | tmkal | I've been playing around with UML notation for describing topic map constraints |
| 16:43:38 | tmkal | http://www.techquila.com/tmsinia2.html describes it in more detail |
| 16:43:53 | tmkal | but I also finally got around to doing PSIs for thesaurii amongst other things too |
| 16:43:57 | larsbot | oh, cool |
| 16:44:07 | larsbot | actually, I'm doing a TM ontology for a customer as UML, too |
| 16:44:13 | larsbot | have a script that converts it to XTM and OSL |
| 16:44:17 | tmkal | (see the news item http://www.techquila.com/index.html) |
| 16:44:20 | tmkal | cool! |
| 16:44:28 | the^chosen^one | the^chosen^one has joined #topicmaps |
| 16:44:34 | the^chosen^one | the^chosen^one has left #topicmaps () |
| 16:44:44 | tmkal | I just use it for digramming at the moment |
| 16:45:59 | larsbot | very cool. we need something like this |
| 16:46:39 | tmkal | aye - it came up while I was doing some work for a client |
| 16:47:05 | tmkal | more patterns would be a good thing |
| 16:47:22 | larsbot | absolutely, and especially a convention for how to write them up |
| 16:47:26 | tmkal | BTW I think that the hierachy pattern can extend ontopia's transitive PSI |
| 16:47:41 | tmkal | way to write them up: yes |
| 16:47:45 | tmkal | ideally a DTD :) |
| 16:47:52 | larsbot | uh, well :) |
| 16:47:59 | tmkal | but at least a set of guidelines as to what goes in there |
| 16:48:21 | larsbot | I think what most people need to get started is an example |
| 16:48:25 | tmkal | yeah |
| 16:48:31 | tmkal | thats why I haven't announced it yet |
| 16:48:45 | larsbot | ? |
| 16:48:47 | tmkal | I'm going to do an example or two of each pattern and put them into the document |
| 16:48:57 | larsbot | ah, I see :-) |
| 16:49:04 | tmkal | oh you mean example of pattern write-up ? |
| 16:49:15 | tmkal | or example of pattern ? |
| 16:49:15 | tmkal | :) |
| 16:49:19 | larsbot | the former :) |
| 16:49:33 | larsbot | but they do need both |
| 16:50:02 | larsbot | if you'd used <link rel=next ...> I could have read this as if it were a single document in Opera 7.1 |
| 16:50:06 | larsbot | something to consider, perhaps |
| 16:50:28 | tmkal | indeed |
| 16:50:57 | tmkal | I added code to my site generation stylesheet to stick in link rel=home |
| 16:51:10 | tmkal | so many features to implement...so little time :) |
| 16:51:36 | larsbot | yeah :) |
| 16:52:20 | larsbot | hmmmm. isn't it better to not scope the perferred term at all? |
| 16:52:40 | larsbot | scope is restriction on applicability, so to leave it unrestricted seems to me best |
| 16:52:47 | tmkal | makes sense, yes |
| 16:54:02 | larsbot | I like your approach with two alternatives, though |
| 16:54:17 | tmkal | cule! |
| 16:54:43 | larsbot | this is great stuff |
| 16:54:45 | tmkal | i think translating between them would be pretty easy with a topic map toolkit |
| 16:54:47 | tmkal | thanks! |
| 16:55:00 | larsbot | yeah. once TMQL has modification it should be dead simple |
| 16:55:23 | larsbot | btw, one thing to add may be XTM documents that add names to the topics |
| 16:55:29 | tmkal | tell you what, I might just do a jython script using TM4J - I guess is might eb quicker :) |
| 16:56:01 | tmkal | the topics that reify the published subjects ? |
| 16:56:30 | larsbot | certainly would give you the result a lot sooner :) |
| 16:56:34 | larsbot | yeah |
| 16:56:46 | tmkal | thats a good idea |
| 16:56:59 | larsbot | and maybe even an OSL schema to document the constraints... |
| 16:57:19 | tmkal | yeah, thats a good point too |
| 16:57:45 | larsbot | hmmm. why represent the facet-has-root relationship explicitly? |
| 16:57:49 | larsbot | it's redundant... |
| 16:58:18 | tmkal | in what way ? |
| 16:59:08 | larsbot | if you can reach the same topic by traversing up the hierarchy you already have that info, no? |
| 16:59:14 | tmkal | * tmkal scribbles suggestions on a bit of paper |
| 16:59:23 | tmkal | yes, that is true |
| 16:59:43 | tmkal | I just thought it would be good to be explicit |
| 16:59:45 | larsbot | btw, you may want to look at this: http://xfml.org/ |
| 16:59:50 | tmkal | I already did |
| 16:59:54 | larsbot | aha :-) |
| 16:59:58 | tmkal | I got most of my ideas from it :) |
| 17:00:08 | larsbot | because an XFML->XTM converter using these PSIs would be wildly cool |
| 17:00:17 | tmkal | * tmkal scriblles note to ad xfml to bibliography |
| 17:00:24 | tmkal | it would indeed |
| 17:00:34 | tmkal | prob. easy enough with XSLT |
| 17:01:05 | tmkal | the reason for having explicit root is that it might be that you would have two hierarchies |
| 17:01:10 | tmkal | with the same hierarchy association |
| 17:01:15 | tmkal | but different facets |
| 17:01:16 | larsbot | yep. already have one in the OKS CVS tree that uses SAX and builds TM directly |
| 17:01:27 | larsbot | how so? |
| 17:01:48 | larsbot | see also http://xfml.org/spec/1.0.html#topicfacetid |
| 17:01:52 | tmkal | say you are classifying car parts |
| 17:02:06 | tmkal | use a part-whole relationship to identify part components |
| 17:02:22 | tmkal | but also a part-whole relationship to identify place of manufacture |
| 17:02:43 | tmkal | (e.g. longbridge plant is part of birmingham, birmingham is part of uk) |
| 17:03:15 | tmkal | so two facets could be using the same hierarchy association type |
| 17:03:30 | tmkal | the only way to distinguish the hierarchies is by root |
| 17:03:34 | larsbot | sure |
| 17:03:48 | larsbot | but you can always find the root through traversal, so... |
| 17:05:23 | tmkal | I don't understand - where would you start traversal from |
| 17:05:48 | larsbot | the topic itself |
| 17:06:10 | larsbot | you could make a tolog inference rule that would always get you the root to which a topic belongs |
| 17:06:24 | larsbot | or maybe I didn't understand you |
| 17:06:36 | tmkal | ok I see what you mean |
| 17:06:53 | tmkal | it would be possible to do that, yes |
| 17:07:11 | tmkal | but I think if you wanted to construct a top-down view then having the |
| 17:07:17 | tmkal | facet roots explicit would be a good thing |
| 17:07:51 | tmkal | actually without knowing the roots, it would be impossible to tie a hierarchy to a facet |
| 17:08:01 | tmkal | back to the car parts - if I have a part topic |
| 17:08:25 | tmkal | and it is associated with a location topic and an assembly topic |
| 17:08:34 | tmkal | which are both categories in different facet hierarchies |
| 17:08:42 | tmkal | how do i tell which one belongs to which facet ? |
| 17:09:11 | tmkal | just the association types are not going to be enough cos they are both using the part-whole hierarchy type |
| 17:09:27 | larsbot | by traversing from the location/association topic upwards to the root you'd find the root |
| 17:09:36 | tmkal | you would |
| 17:09:41 | tmkal | but then which facet is it ? |
| 17:10:00 | tmkal | you could traverse up to "World" at the top of the location hierarchy |
| 17:10:10 | tmkal | and to "Car" at the top of the assembly hierarchy |
| 17:10:18 | tmkal | but which is which ? |
| 17:10:29 | tmkal | the root != facet topic |
| 17:10:38 | larsbot | aha. that's the piece I was missing |
| 17:11:16 | larsbot | oh, I understand now. I thought you followed XFML, but it seems you don't |
| 17:11:22 | tmkal | ok, that would probably have been a whole lot easier if I had made an example :) |
| 17:11:30 | tmkal | XFML has markup for a "facet" |
| 17:11:30 | larsbot | yeah :-) |
| 17:11:47 | larsbot | you connect World to Location, but not, say, Swindon to Location, right? |
| 17:11:58 | tmkal | yes |
| 17:12:12 | larsbot | ok. sorry, then everything I said was just wrong |
| 17:13:01 | larsbot | anyway, the sooner you publish this, the better, I say :-) |
| 17:13:02 | tmkal | I think that XFML requires that every topic in a hierarchy refers to a facet |
| 17:13:05 | tmkal | :) |
| 17:13:18 | tmkal | I guess I should just do some simple examples |
| 17:13:33 | larsbot | it does, which was what led me astray here |
| 17:13:52 | tmkal | maybe it is worth pointing that out in a note somewhere then |
| 17:14:19 | larsbot | probably is. an example would also help |
| 17:14:23 | tmkal | yeah |
| 17:14:33 | larsbot | do you want this in the blog, btw? |
| 17:15:21 | tmkal | why not ? :) |
| 17:15:31 | tmkal | I already put the PSIs on easytopicmaps |
| 17:15:50 | larsbot | that's what I noticed :) |
| 17:15:59 | larsbot | btw, having this thing as a single page would be very nice |
| 17:16:18 | larsbot | tmbot: url: http://www.techquila.com/tmsinia.html |
| 17:16:28 | larsbot | tmbot: title: Topic Map Patterns For Information Architecture |
| 17:16:54 | tmkal | cule! |
| 17:17:22 | larsbot | tmbot: comment: Paper by Kal Ahmed which introduces a UML-based pattern notation for topic maps and uses it to define published subject sets for thesauri, faceted classification, and hierarchical classification systems in general. |
| 17:17:43 | larsbot | will show up at http://topicmaps.it.bond.edu.au/weblogs.mc within the hour |
| 17:18:14 | tmkal | excellent |
| 17:18:36 | tmkal | BTW: do you know if there will be BOF sessions at XML Europe ? |
| 17:19:23 | larsbot | nope. I have to contact IDEAlliance about that |
| 17:19:34 | larsbot | did you see the TM/RDF QL one in the blog? |
| 17:19:47 | tmkal | no I didn't... |
| 17:20:24 | tmkal | aha...now I have |
| 17:20:56 | tmkal | I was considering a topicmaps/IA BOF |
| 17:21:07 | tmkal | hence the paper - as a discussion point |
| 17:21:26 | larsbot | oh, I see. that would be very cool |
| 17:21:55 | larsbot | I'll cc you on the email to IDEAlliance, then |
| 17:22:02 | tmkal | that would be great, thanks! |
| 17:23:49 | larsbot | now sent |
| 17:23:57 | larsbot | also, btw, will you attend any of the ISO meeting? |
| 17:24:22 | tmkal | yeah |
| 17:24:39 | larsbot | oh, great. we need support :) |
| 17:24:43 | tmkal | :) |
| 17:25:04 | tmkal | I'm afraid that I am likely to be not very politically correct :) |
| 17:25:10 | larsbot | how so? |
| 17:25:31 | tmkal | I don't think that the RM/TMM is ready for standardisation at all |
| 17:25:36 | tmkal | I don't think its needed |
| 17:25:51 | tmkal | I don't think it standardises anything - cos there is no prior art |
| 17:26:01 | tmkal | SAM standardises a model that is already implemented by different tools |
| 17:26:23 | tmkal | TMCL/TMQL will standardise languages for constraints and queries which are already implemented by different tools |
| 17:26:23 | larsbot | privately I agree with all of that |
| 17:27:14 | tmkal | I can see why people want to develop a TMM/RM |
| 17:27:24 | tmkal | but it should be developed first, then standardised |
| 17:27:52 | tmkal | unfortunately I don't think that that is the kind of thing that will go down too well... |
| 17:28:00 | larsbot | there are many people who agree with you |
| 17:28:08 | xover | xover has quit None (Excess Flood) |
| 17:28:31 | larsbot | in fact, there is a possibility that some people will try to throw it out of 13250 altogether |
| 17:28:39 | larsbot | don't know whether it will be attempted or not |
| 17:28:51 | xover | xover has joined #topicmaps |
| 17:29:17 | tmkal | I guess that it will be a political decision at the end of the day |
| 17:29:30 | larsbot | yeah, definitely |
| 17:30:21 | tmkal | anyway, I do agree that SAM should go to CD as soon as possible |
| 17:30:31 | tmkal | things need to start happening |
| 17:30:33 | larsbot | excellent. that's the important thing, IMHO |
| 17:30:50 | tmkal | yeah, I can live with TMM/RM being done, as long as things don't get held up by it |
| 17:30:59 | larsbot | exactly. that's my view as well |
| 17:31:03 | larsbot | I'm really looking forward to getting started on the TMQL/TMCL work |
| 17:31:09 | larsbot | I think that will be a lot of fun |
| 17:31:17 | tmkal | yeah I agree |
| 17:31:41 | tmkal | and CXTM needs to be done and announced |
| 17:32:03 | larsbot | yup. Pepper-san has made good progress on CXTM |
| 17:32:07 | larsbot | it's not ready, but getting there |
| 17:32:31 | tmkal | yeah, I really would like to get time to implement it before the meeting, but its not looking too likely at the moment :( |
| 17:33:09 | larsbot | don't think it's actually possible to implement it as it stands right now :-) |
| 17:33:13 | larsbot | so don't worry :) |
| 17:33:29 | tmkal | :) |
| 17:34:03 | tmkal | have you got an issues list for it anywhere ? |
| 17:34:20 | larsbot | nope |
| 17:34:30 | larsbot | that reminds me I should get hold of the XML and process it into tm-standards.xtm |
| 17:34:37 | larsbot | in fact, I need to update tm-standards.xtm |
| 17:34:48 | tmkal | might be good to start a list somewhere too then... |
| 17:35:03 | larsbot | can pull that out of the <issue> elements in the spec |
| 17:35:22 | larsbot | actually, I should make an OKS web application for that TM |
| 17:35:41 | tmkal | ah, that reminds me |
| 17:35:51 | tmkal | another bar-discussion should be on a topic map Wiki |
| 17:36:03 | larsbot | oh yes yes yes :) |
| 17:36:06 | tmkal | I am thinking that a combination of Wiki + LTM |
| 17:36:17 | tmkal | would rock |
| 17:36:17 | larsbot | FloK, who hangs out here now and then, is into that, I think |
| 17:36:24 | larsbot | it certainly would. no question about it |
| 17:36:48 | tmkal | it would also be a nice test app for building with tm4web |
| 17:36:52 | larsbot | it's just crying out for somebody to do it, IMHO |
| 17:36:55 | tmkal | :) |
| 17:37:14 | tmkal | I agree ... |
| 17:37:42 | larsbot | there's also Sakurai-san in Japan who's keen on it |
| 17:37:45 | larsbot | or at least was keen |
| 17:38:29 | tmkal | cule |
| 17:38:52 | tmkal | well, it probably won't get started before XML Europe, so perhaps we can have a design session :) |
| 17:39:01 | larsbot | would be lovely :-) |
| 17:39:14 | larsbot | btw, I did a rough draft of an XSLT-for-topic maps, based on tolog. wanna see? |
| 17:39:27 | tmkal | yes please! |
| 17:39:56 | larsbot | momento |
| 17:41:30 | larsbot | mailed to you now |
| 17:41:43 | larsbot | note that the thing is implemented, so I have the example actually running |
| 17:42:02 | tmkal | cule! |
| 17:42:15 | larsbot | * larsbot was surprised at how easy it was |
| 17:44:02 | tmkal | excellent stuff! |
| 17:44:18 | tmkal | this is exactly the kind of thing that is needed to get non-programmers making pages with topic maps |
| 17:44:32 | larsbot | very glad to hear you approve of it |
| 17:44:40 | larsbot | was thinking this might belong as TMQL, part 3 |
| 17:45:04 | tmkal | why not make a proposal for a TMTL standard ? |
| 17:45:23 | tmkal | actually, I wonder how this would play with XSLT2 ? |
| 17:45:43 | tmkal | * tmkal hasn't actually read the whole XSLT2 spec yet |
| 17:45:56 | larsbot | we could do a separate standard as well. not sure it matters |
| 17:46:03 | larsbot | hmmm. what are you thinking re XSLT2? |
| 17:46:09 | tmkal | Isn't there some extensibility stuff in XSLT2 ? |
| 17:46:13 | larsbot | oh, I see |
| 17:46:18 | larsbot | there is in 1.0, too |
| 17:46:23 | tmkal | I wonder if it is possible to create a "tmql::" axis |
| 17:46:29 | tmkal | or something like that |
| 17:46:43 | larsbot | humm. would be cool to see an attempt, at least :) |
| 17:47:44 | tmkal | I had a discussion a while ago with Tony Coates about doing something similar in XSLT 1.0 |
| 17:48:03 | tmkal | basically by hacking Xalan to add some topicmap-specific axes |
| 17:48:14 | tmkal | which would be kind of cule |
| 17:48:56 | larsbot | if you could get it to work it would be very cool |
| 17:49:44 | tmkal | aye |
| 17:49:56 | tmkal | its that lack of time thing again... :( |
| 17:50:02 | tmkal | http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#extension |
| 17:50:03 | larsbot | yeah, or lack of people |
| 17:50:20 | tmkal | looks like you can define your own XSLT elements |
| 17:50:31 | larsbot | you can in 1.0, too |
| 17:50:43 | larsbot | in my book I show how to implement extensions in several XSLT processors |
| 17:50:46 | tmkal | * tmkal learns something new every day |
| 17:50:54 | larsbot | both extension elements and extension functions |
| 17:51:28 | tmkal | I though in XSLT1 extension mechanism wasn't defined by the spec ? |
| 17:51:50 | larsbot | it is: http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#extension |
| 17:51:57 | tmkal | ah |
| 17:52:23 | larsbot | not that it makes your idea any less interesting :) |
| 17:52:27 | tmkal | :)) |
| 17:52:47 | tmkal | well, I would support a move to make a TMTL standard that builds on TMQL |
| 17:53:10 | tmkal | rather than delay TMQL by wrangling over the mechanics of a templating language |
| 17:53:23 | larsbot | yeah, agreed. though they should probably be designed together |
| 17:53:30 | larsbot | the one interacts strongly with the other |
| 17:53:51 | tmkal | perhaps |
| 17:53:57 | larsbot | the TMTL proposal I put forward is subtly different from XSLT because tolog is different from XPath |
| 17:54:38 | tmkal | TMTL seems to essentially be extracting strings rather than sets of objects |
| 17:54:49 | tmkal | except in the for-each / if tags |
| 17:55:33 | tmkal | if you did an XPath extension for topic maps, it might look more like SAM-access |
| 17:56:09 | larsbot | prolly would, yes |
| 17:56:20 | larsbot | TMTL: it does both, actually |
| 17:56:29 | larsbot | sometimes you pick out objects, other times strings |
| 17:56:45 | larsbot | note that I introduced occurrence predicates in tolog |
| 17:56:47 | tmkal | I can't wait for the new tolog spec ;) |
| 17:56:57 | larsbot | doing it as my Montreal paper :-) |
| 17:57:04 | larsbot | occurrence-type(TOPIC, LOCATOR/VALUE) |
| 17:57:20 | larsbot | so you can say email(kal, $EMAIL)? and get it |
| 17:57:38 | tmkal | yeah, thats more or less how I hoped it would work |
| 17:58:22 | tmkal | works nicely with the "occurrence as association" view of the world too |
| 17:58:44 | larsbot | it does |
| 17:58:53 | larsbot | tolog is actually a bit like the RM: everything is a predicate |
| 17:59:00 | larsbot | and a predicate is pretty much an association |
| 17:59:09 | larsbot | what's cool is that the RDF QLs seem to follow the same model |
| 17:59:30 | tmkal | great minds... |
| 18:00:38 | tmkal | * tmkal is off to make some tea |
| 18:00:44 | larsbot | yeah. actually it's just datalog adapted to a different model |
| 18:09:08 | larsbot | * larsbot starts on presentation for XTM discussion at ISO meeting |
| 18:09:57 | tmkal | * tmkal is finally writing his slides! |
| 18:10:04 | larsbot | ooh :) |
| 18:10:10 | tmkal | :) |
| 18:10:18 | larsbot | haven't started on mine yet, but I have *piles* of them to do |
| 18:10:18 | tmkal | thats why i needed the tea first :)) |
| 18:10:24 | larsbot | makes sense :) |
| 18:10:30 | larsbot | * larsbot drinking tea as he writes, too |
| 18:13:53 | larsbot | * larsbot wonders how to get rid of OpenOffice assistant |
| 18:15:06 | tmkal | feed it to clippit ! |
| 18:15:20 | larsbot | clippit? |
| 18:15:31 | tmkal | the ms office assisstant |
| 18:15:39 | tmkal | put them in a room and let them fight it out |
| 18:16:14 | tmkal | alternatively, simply use emacs :) |
| 18:16:29 | FloK | FloK has joined #topicmaps |
| 18:17:04 | larsbot | attractive idea, but I'd have to install Windows to do it :-) |
| 18:17:06 | larsbot | hi FloK |
| 19:27:30 | FloK | hi larsbot |
| 19:28:00 | FloK | i've been sleeping zzzzzz... |
| 19:28:39 | larsbot | no problem |
| 19:28:47 | larsbot | were you thinking of doing a topic map-based wiki? |
| 19:29:02 | FloK | I had a nice but strenuous day with my girlfriend and her children :) |
| 19:29:14 | FloK | wiki: yes :) |
| 19:29:17 | larsbot | sounds very good :-) |
| 19:29:21 | larsbot | * larsbot thought so |
| 19:29:26 | FloK | :) |
| 19:29:28 | larsbot | tmkal is interested in the same thing |
| 19:29:34 | larsbot | could you tell us about what you've thought/done? |
| 19:29:44 | FloK | I need it. Sometimes i lose my way in my wikik ;) |
| 19:30:07 | larsbot | yeah, I also think it would be fantastically cool |
| 19:30:11 | FloK | cool. - Hi tmkal! |
| 19:30:43 | larsbot | how far have you progressed with the idea? |
| 19:31:12 | FloK | i thought about inventing further relationships between pages.. |
| 19:31:19 | FloK | ie "see also" |
| 19:31:46 | FloK | ZWiki already has a "isParent" rel. |
| 19:32:01 | larsbot | right. perhaps adding 'type' to the pages would also be useful? |
| 19:32:07 | FloK | so one can build a hierarchy |
| 19:32:26 | FloK | what type for example? |
| 19:32:47 | FloK | the type is the rendering type at the mom. |
| 19:33:11 | FloK | stx, hmtl, plain, sh, sp, hp, blabla |
| 19:33:24 | larsbot | things like FloK : person, tmkal : person, Ontopia : company |
| 19:34:05 | larsbot | do you have an implementation of this, btw? |
| 19:34:31 | FloK | about the page title - thistitle: topic |
| 19:34:43 | FloK | no:( |
| 19:34:57 | FloK | I cant get ZTM to work |
| 19:35:03 | larsbot | too bad :-( |
| 19:35:13 | FloK | and i havent heard anything from arnarl |
| 19:35:18 | FloK | yes :( |
| 19:35:21 | larsbot | he's probably on vacation |
| 19:35:39 | FloK | i see. good for him :) |
| 19:36:04 | tmkal | hi FloK! Sorry - I was engrossed in playing with fonts on my other machine :) |
| 19:36:06 | FloK | I am not good enough in zope do to it myself. |
| 19:36:17 | FloK | not yet... :) soon! |
| 19:36:42 | larsbot | "do it" meaning "implement ZTMWiki" or "get ZTM running"? |
| 19:36:49 | FloK | next week i talk with a company about working for them... |
| 19:37:11 | FloK | they do zope and Knowledge M., and i wrote them about the idea.. |
| 19:37:24 | FloK | and they invited my the same day :) |
| 19:37:36 | FloK | ..em for next week |
| 19:38:03 | FloK | get it running, even |
| 19:38:22 | tmkal | I had the same problem with ZTM... |
| 19:38:38 | tmkal | I hacked at it a bit, but had to give up in the end |
| 19:38:50 | FloK | hmm :( |
| 19:38:52 | larsbot | oh, that's really cool. hope you get a job there :-) |
| 19:39:03 | tmkal | shame cos I would like to have a running ZTM installation on my machine... |
| 19:39:14 | FloK | i will. i Really want it! |
| 19:39:51 | FloK | what did you do tmkal? same as me , something else? |
| 19:40:07 | tmkal | yeah |
| 19:40:22 | tmkal | I ended up doing what I needed with Struts + TM4J + Velocity |
| 19:40:40 | tmkal | but if I had got it working with ZTM it would have had loads more features... |
| 19:40:41 | FloK | ? |
| 19:40:52 | larsbot | what was it you did? |
| 19:41:05 | tmkal | just an example KM portal thingy for a client |
| 19:41:10 | tmkal | but it ended up being read-only |
| 19:41:21 | tmkal | cos I didn't have time to implement any form of editing |
| 19:41:36 | tmkal | thats when I started thinking about tm-based wikis |
| 19:41:57 | FloK | the portal was in zope? |
| 19:42:13 | tmkal | the client is not at the stage of choosing a technology yet |
| 19:42:18 | tmkal | so it was up for grabs |
| 19:42:28 | tmkal | in the end they will prolly go for a commercial package |
| 19:42:45 | tmkal | but right now they need something to do more proof-of-concept type work |
| 19:43:14 | FloK | where are you loc. tmkal? |
| 19:43:19 | tmkal | oxford, uk |
| 19:43:32 | FloK | ok. |
| 19:43:49 | tmkal | how 'bout you ? |
| 19:44:13 | FloK | next city to munich, s-germany |
| 19:44:40 | tmkal | ah! |
| 19:45:06 | tmkal | I guess if you are looking for work you are prolly not planning on getting to XML Europe :( |
| 19:45:32 | FloK | Do you want to try ztm again? I'll setup a new zope, maybe I'll get some help from germans. |
| 19:46:02 | FloK | when and where? |
| 19:46:07 | larsbot | 5-8 May, London |
| 19:46:32 | FloK | yep, probably not because of work. |
| 19:46:35 | FloK | :( |
| 19:46:41 | larsbot | too bad :-( |
| 19:46:45 | tmkal | shame |
| 19:46:49 | FloK | would be a good opportunity to visit london .. |
| 19:46:54 | FloK | never been to UK! |
| 19:47:17 | tmkal | have to arrange it some time then! |
| 19:47:19 | tmkal | :) |
| 19:47:40 | tmkal | ztm: prolly going to see if I can implement something with TM4J instead |
| 19:47:56 | FloK | TM4J ? |
| 19:48:04 | tmkal | http://tm4j.org/ |
| 19:48:07 | larsbot | would be vastly easier with ZTM, methinks, but competition is good :) |
| 19:48:15 | tmkal | :)) |
| 19:48:33 | tmkal | you overestimate how hard it would be with TM4J ;-) |
| 19:48:34 | FloK | :) |
| 19:48:54 | FloK | * FloK checks site |
| 19:49:16 | larsbot | possibly :) |
| 19:49:18 | tmkal | plus using tm4j, I can make use of the cool new SVG and VRML renderings for topic maps :) |
| 19:49:25 | larsbot | whoo :) |
| 19:49:45 | FloK | VRML ? wow. |
| 19:50:11 | FloK | is VRML still ontopic? |
| 19:51:21 | tmkal | well I must admit I don't know too much about VRML - another contributor to the project developed the renderer |
| 19:51:26 | FloK | FloK has quit None (Remote closed the connection) |
| 19:51:38 | larsbot | FloK crashed in astonishment :-) |
| 19:51:42 | tmkal | but apparently there are a bunch of plugins that can display it... |
| 19:52:59 | FloK | FloK has joined #topicmaps |
| 19:53:11 | larsbot | do you have any examples of the visualizations? |
| 19:53:16 | FloK | uff xchat crashed :( |
| 19:53:52 | FloK | I dont get along with the TM4J site navigation. |
| 19:54:06 | FloK | Is there content in the FAQ? Cannot see any. |
| 19:55:45 | tmkal | there isn't a lot of content there yet |
| 19:55:50 | tmkal | yeah, navigation needs sorting out |
| 19:56:02 | tmkal | I have a plan for that, just need to find the time to do it |
| 19:56:15 | tmkal | examples of visualisation: nope |
| 19:56:42 | tmkal | Harald posted a message about it a couple of days ago, I haven't had chance to d/l and play with it... |
| 19:57:22 | tmkal | prolly the best docs to look at about tm4j is the dev. guide |
| 19:57:58 | tmkal | http://tm4j.org/docs/devguide/ |
| 19:58:40 | tmkal | TopicMapViewer announcement: https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1984501&forum_id=30220 |
| 19:58:42 | FloK | ah! :) |
| 20:01:54 | larsbot | very cool :-) |
| 20:02:19 | tmkal | I'm d/l the WAR file and an updated tomcat now |
| 20:02:41 | tmkal | so maybe tonight I'll be able to put some sample SVG files somewhere if you are interested |
| 20:08:37 | larsbot | I would be |
| 20:09:18 | larsbot | btw, I'm finishing up a set of slides for the ISO meeting about the new XTM |
| 20:09:25 | larsbot | anyone want to have a look through them? |
| 20:10:09 | tmkal | I might take a quick look later on tonight if you can put them somewhere/email them to me |
| 20:10:52 | larsbot | will email them, I think |
| 20:11:03 | tmkal | cule |
| 20:11:03 | FloK | * FloK installs ZTM on a fresh zope. |
| 20:17:53 | FloK | FloK has quit None (Remote closed the connection) |
| 20:18:16 | tmkal | gotta go have some dinner...back in a while |
| 20:18:20 | tmkal | tmkal has quit None ("Client Exiting") |
| 20:21:13 | FloK | FloK has joined #topicmaps |
| 20:21:27 | FloK | re |
| 20:25:12 | larsbot | xchat 2 is not yet stable, I see :) |
| 20:26:01 | FloK | LOL |
| 20:26:29 | FloK | It's called xchat-2, because it crashes two times a day. |
| 20:26:41 | FloK | so for today i'm ok |
| 20:26:43 | FloK | :) |
| 20:27:41 | larsbot | lucky you :) |
| 20:27:54 | FloK | :9 |
| 20:30:18 | FloK | FloK has quit None (Remote closed the connection) |
| 20:32:51 | xover | xover has quit None (Excess Flood) |
| 20:33:05 | xover | xover has joined #topicmaps |
| 20:42:52 | FloK | FloK has joined #topicmaps |
| 20:46:00 | FloK | arg! xchat upgraded to v.3 ;-) |
| 20:46:01 | FloK | larsbot: xmtal quit? |
| 20:46:01 | FloK | need his email. - ah, it's on the TM4J site, ok |
| 20:46:01 | FloK | I'm fine. |
| 20:46:02 | FloK | cu. |
| 20:46:02 | FloK | FloK has quit None (sterling.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) |
| 20:47:21 | FloK | FloK has joined #topicmaps |
| 20:52:26 | larsbot | version 4 released already? :) |
| 21:06:40 | larsbot | * larsbot finishes presentation about XTM |
| 21:07:11 | FloK | probably coming soon... :-/ |
| 21:08:13 | FloK | But i check out for today, before i am checked out by xchat... :) ... cu! |
| 21:08:34 | larsbot | bye :) |
| 21:08:46 | FloK | It was nice to cu, Lars! |
| 21:08:51 | FloK | bye |
| 21:08:54 | FloK | FloK is now known as FloK-away |
| 21:34:00 | tmkal | tmkal has joined #topicmaps |
| 21:51:49 | larsbot | hullo |
| 21:58:55 | larsbot | * larsbot installing batik |
| 22:05:59 | larsbot | grrrr! batik won't run |
| 22:10:56 | larsbot | ontopia.svg is not well-formed XML: encoding declaration is wrong |
| 22:11:35 | tmkal | doh! |
| 22:11:46 | tmkal | Acrobat's plugin doesn't care :)) |
| 22:12:12 | tmkal | I guessed that the char encoding was the problem |
| 22:12:24 | larsbot | looks pretty nice, though |
| 22:12:31 | tmkal | does oks.svg or graham.svg work ? |
| 22:12:34 | larsbot | they still have some work to do, but this quite cool even so |
| 22:12:39 | larsbot | * larsbot got them all to work |
| 22:12:50 | larsbot | fixed ontopia.svg by hand :) |
| 22:12:54 | tmkal | yeah, there are some things that could be done to it to make it nicer |
| 22:12:55 | tmkal | :) |
| 22:13:23 | tmkal | but its interesting to see that this was all built with TMNav even in its current pre-pre-pre production state :) |
| 22:14:33 | larsbot | TMNav? |
| 22:14:59 | larsbot | * larsbot discovers that sodipodi is a nice drawing tool using SVG as native format |
| 22:15:37 | tmkal | TMNav started out as a desktop app for displaying topic maps |
| 22:15:48 | tmkal | but evolved into a framework for topic map applications |
| 22:16:02 | tmkal | using an abstraction/renderer model |
| 22:16:17 | tmkal | abstractor generates a graph from the topic map using the abstraction rules |
| 22:16:39 | tmkal | the renderer turns the graph into VRML/SVG/HTML/TouchGraph nodes |
| 22:16:55 | tmkal | there is even a WS interface built on it ! |
| 22:17:08 | larsbot | oh, cool |
| 22:17:27 | larsbot | how do you specify abstraction rules? |
| 22:17:40 | tmkal | they are coded in Java at the moment |
| 22:17:49 | tmkal | you can chose an abstractor implementation |
| 22:18:02 | tmkal | they all use the same interface so in theory are interchangeable at run-time |
| 22:18:28 | larsbot | right. and in theory you could have a language for writing them in |
| 22:18:42 | tmkal | yeah |
| 22:18:59 | tmkal | in fact you could probably make something quite interesting using Tolog |
| 22:19:41 | tmkal | the nice thing about the abstraction layer is that the abstract graphs are easier to process than the source topic map |
| 22:19:44 | larsbot | actually, if you had an XML language for them you could do TMTL -> language-X |
| 22:19:57 | larsbot | anything is easier to process than a TM :-) |
| 22:20:03 | tmkal | :)) |
| 22:20:27 | tmkal | you could do TMTL -> Language-X in theory I suppose |
| 22:20:38 | tmkal | depends on how expressive you make Language-X |
| 22:21:27 | larsbot | yeah. I don't know what your graphs look like, so I don't know how practical it would be |
| 22:22:03 | tmkal | thats what I am wondering |
| 22:22:14 | tmkal | they are basically labelled nodes with labelled arcs |
| 22:24:00 | larsbot | sounds pretty easy, if you ask me |
| 22:24:49 | tmkal | aye |
| 22:25:15 | tmkal | the XML rendition should be really easy for users to work with (e.g. in XSLT) |
| 22:25:36 | tmkal | I think that the task of defining an abstraction would be more of a programming thing |
| 22:25:53 | tmkal | but it would be nice if you could make the language as close to the topic map model as possible |
| 22:25:54 | larsbot | sure, but if you could do it declaratively that would be a win |
| 22:25:57 | tmkal | yep |
| 22:26:16 | tmkal | so something based on a TM QL would be ideal |
| 22:26:38 | larsbot | yeah. we need a standard TMQL, and we need it soon |
| 22:26:51 | larsbot | * larsbot working on slides for TMQL presentation in London right now |
| 22:27:27 | tmkal | * tmkal messing about with fonts when he should be writing his presentation content :) |
| 22:28:06 | tmkal | make sure you add a bullet in about abstractors for TM4J |
| 22:28:07 | tmkal | :)) |
| 22:28:11 | larsbot | hehe :-) |
| 22:28:18 | larsbot | which reminds me, did you look at the slides I sent out? |
| 22:28:28 | tmkal | I haven't yet... |
| 22:28:38 | tmkal | * tmkal is opening them now |
| 22:32:01 | tmkal | N0398 = ? |
| 22:32:10 | tmkal | I lose track of all these numbers :) |
| 22:33:15 | larsbot | N0398 is the latest XTM syntax draft |
| 22:33:19 | tmkal | ok |
| 22:33:40 | tmkal | xtm-href-pointer: Is the proposal to only *require* bare name XPointer syntax |
| 22:33:48 | tmkal | or to only *allow* base name XPointer syntax ? |
| 22:34:21 | tmkal | my feeling is that an XTM processor should only be required to implement bare names |
| 22:34:22 | larsbot | to only allow |
| 22:34:27 | larsbot | * larsbot fixes wording |
| 22:34:33 | tmkal | ah |
| 22:34:46 | tmkal | then I'm not sure I like the recommendataion then :) |
| 22:35:14 | larsbot | why not? |
| 22:35:41 | tmkal | It is unecessarily constraining - surely if people want to put full XPointer syntax in there they should be allowed to |
| 22:36:07 | tmkal | so XTM should allow them to do it |
| 22:36:18 | larsbot | but then we have to support it... |
| 22:36:22 | tmkal | no |
| 22:36:31 | tmkal | you can say that a processor need only support bare names |
| 22:36:45 | tmkal | and say nothing about what a user is allowed to put in the field |
| 22:36:51 | larsbot | what's the point if none of them are going to support it? |
| 22:36:59 | tmkal | none of them right now are |
| 22:37:16 | larsbot | can't imagine that any of them will, either, since to support XPointer you have to build a full DOM |
| 22:37:17 | tmkal | but perhaps someone will implement support for a subset of XPointer that can be processed in a streaming parser |
| 22:37:32 | tmkal | memory gets cheaper all the time :) |
| 22:37:46 | tmkal | one day the hardware will catch up with the DOM :)) |
| 22:37:49 | larsbot | sure, but where's the point? I don't see any gain anywhere |
| 22:38:04 | tmkal | exactly, there is no gain in being over restrictive either |
| 22:38:10 | tmkal | so be less restrictive |
| 22:38:19 | tmkal | say what is *expected* of XTM processors |
| 22:38:21 | tmkal | and set the bar low |
| 22:38:31 | larsbot | * larsbot is uneasy about optional feature |
| 22:38:37 | larsbot | XML did that, and look where they ended up |
| 22:38:52 | tmkal | aye, but look at the take-up |
| 22:39:07 | tmkal | cos the cost of entry is low, but the headroom is there for additional power |
| 22:39:24 | tmkal | how many browsers support full XPointer now ? |
| 22:39:28 | larsbot | none |
| 22:39:39 | tmkal | so why bother with XPointer then ? :) |
| 22:39:57 | larsbot | that's what we're proposing, to not bother with it |
| 22:40:08 | tmkal | it was a rhetorical question :)) |
| 22:40:30 | larsbot | * larsbot now thoroughly confused |
| 22:40:40 | tmkal | XPointer exists cos *some* people need it |
| 22:40:53 | larsbot | sure, but in XTM everything has IDs |
| 22:41:22 | tmkal | but making a blanket restriction of xlink:href stops you using XPointer in a resourceRef |
| 22:41:30 | larsbot | ah, sorry |
| 22:41:39 | larsbot | it's only going to be disallowed in topicRef and mergeMap |
| 22:41:42 | larsbot | I should have written that |
| 22:41:48 | tmkal | you should ! :) |
| 22:41:55 | tmkal | ok, then I can live with that |
| 22:42:14 | tmkal | you have subjectIndicatorRef in an example too |
| 22:42:34 | larsbot | only because it was difficult to make a sensible example involving topicRef |
| 22:42:44 | tmkal | it is possible that you would want XPointer there and in resourceRef |
| 22:42:51 | larsbot | I agree |
| 22:43:03 | tmkal | ok |
| 22:43:09 | larsbot | * larsbot now glad he sent this out for review |
| 22:43:25 | larsbot | you probably shortened the meeting by a good 30 minutes now :-) |
| 22:43:29 | tmkal | :)) |
| 22:45:34 | tmkal | slide 12 - second bullet under Considerations - shouldn't that be *not* backwards compatible ? |
| 22:46:13 | larsbot | if we deprecate (as opposed to take out) it will be backwards compatible |
| 22:46:18 | larsbot | will try to make that clearer |
| 22:46:22 | tmkal | ok I see |
| 22:46:51 | tmkal | perhaps this meeting should start by agreeing the principles of goodness and badness |
| 22:47:03 | tmkal | i.e. make sure that every one agrees that backwards compatibility is good |
| 22:47:18 | tmkal | otherwise you are in for a long meeting :)) |
| 22:47:42 | larsbot | we've pretty much done that already |
| 22:47:55 | larsbot | I do agree. we've had some long meetings already :-) |
| 22:48:03 | tmkal | :) |
| 22:48:25 | tmkal | does anyone have a chess timer ? |
| 22:48:55 | tmkal | you should bring one to the meeting and give one to each attendee |
| 22:49:09 | tmkal | after they use up their ten minutes, they have to stay quiet and just vote :)) |
| 22:49:49 | larsbot | excellent idea :) |
| 22:50:05 | tmkal | slide 16: xtm-mergemap-reference |
| 22:50:20 | tmkal | has it been discussed what the target element of a mergeMap reference should be |
| 22:50:28 | tmkal | i.e. should it be an error if the target is not a topicMap ? |
| 22:50:39 | larsbot | it hasn't been discussed, no |
| 22:50:43 | tmkal | that seems to be what this is saying, but from a different approach |
| 22:50:55 | larsbot | it is; it sort of takes that for granted |
| 22:51:05 | larsbot | do you think I should put in a slide about that before it? |
| 22:51:15 | tmkal | yes |
| 22:51:18 | larsbot | * larsbot do |
| 22:54:22 | tmkal | slide 25: xtm-unknown-elements |
| 22:54:31 | tmkal | all unknown elements or unknown elements in the xtm namespace ? |
| 22:54:52 | larsbot | all unknown |
| 22:55:05 | tmkal | I want xml in resourceData :P |
| 22:55:17 | tmkal | * tmkal stamps foot repeatedly |
| 22:55:32 | larsbot | argue for it at the meeting, then :) |
| 22:55:37 | tmkal | :) |
| 22:55:47 | larsbot | it's on slide 33... |
| 22:55:47 | tmkal | I shall save my chess-clock time for that then :)) |
| 22:56:06 | tmkal | perhaps a forward ref should be put on slide 25 then |
| 22:56:17 | larsbot | * larsbot do |
| 22:59:53 | tmkal | slide 33 is xtm-subjectidentity-children... |
| 23:00:06 | tmkal | slide 32 is xtm-resourcedata-markup |
| 23:00:28 | larsbot | not any more; I added a new slide |
| 23:00:41 | larsbot | at your request, even :-) |
| 23:00:51 | tmkal | :) |
| 23:01:15 | tmkal | I think allowing a topic to reify multiple resources is asking for trouble |
| 23:01:54 | larsbot | referring to the last one? |
| 23:02:01 | larsbot | well, not allowing it is also asking for trouble, unfortunately |
| 23:02:12 | tmkal | what kind of trouble ? |
| 23:02:25 | larsbot | quite often you'll find the same resources in multiple places |
| 23:02:38 | larsbot | OASIS XMLvoc has this problem with specifications, for example |
| 23:02:52 | larsbot | it also does away with the merge conflict problem |
| 23:03:12 | tmkal | its a nasty way to do it though cos it mucks up the whole conceptual model |
| 23:03:35 | larsbot | well, does it? |
| 23:03:42 | tmkal | I like the fact that two copies of the same page are two separate subjects |
| 23:03:49 | tmkal | it makes sense and it works |
| 23:04:20 | larsbot | sort of, kind of, and then again not |
| 23:04:58 | larsbot | I feel this is the right resolution, but I'm open to argument |
| 23:05:03 | tmkal | if you want to talk about some abstract concept of the resource, then surely the thing you get by dereferencing the URI is actually a subject indicator, not the subject |
| 23:05:19 | tmkal | if URL A and URL B are mirror copies of a document |
| 23:05:29 | tmkal | and I want a topic which reifies the document |
| 23:05:37 | tmkal | than URL A and URL B are subjectIndicators |
| 23:06:04 | tmkal | the topic that reifies the resource at URL A is reifying a specific instance of the document |
| 23:06:51 | tmkal | if you allow multiple resourceRefs, then you end up with two distinct ways of looking at the reification of resources being conflated into a single syntactic construct |
| 23:07:13 | larsbot | I'm not sure you can draw the distinction that sharply |
| 23:07:34 | larsbot | I used to think the same way myself, but looking closer at this I feel it's not so clear |
| 23:07:51 | tmkal | its never going to be absolutely clear |
| 23:07:56 | larsbot | there are many levels of interpretation of a resource and there's no such thing as the level where there is no interpretation but just the resource an sich |
| 23:08:03 | tmkal | you are into the realms of URL metaphysics |
| 23:08:21 | larsbot | exactly, and that's one reason why I felt it was better not to restrict too much |
| 23:08:28 | tmkal | the existing way of dealing with that is to present a heuristic |
| 23:08:45 | tmkal | no, I feel that in this case a solid model is needed |
| 23:08:59 | tmkal | you need to say *this* is the way in which topic maps consider resources |
| 23:09:13 | tmkal | and it has this effect on things like mirror copies |
| 23:09:19 | tmkal | and if you don't like it, tough |
| 23:09:26 | tmkal | :) |
| 23:09:35 | larsbot | * larsbot considering argument |
| 23:09:54 | tmkal | if you are too loose with this fundamental definition of subject identity, you end up in the position of RDF |
| 23:09:57 | tmkal | :-& |
| 23:10:01 | larsbot | hmmmm. I'm not convinced |
| 23:10:15 | tmkal | thats ok, cos I know I'm right :) |
| 23:10:31 | larsbot | I think this needs to be discussed. we'll see what the others say |
| 23:10:48 | larsbot | make your own set of slides if you feel like it :) |
| 23:10:54 | tmkal | :) |
| 23:11:13 | tmkal | I might do that for the couple of issues I'm going to fight on :) |
| 23:11:49 | larsbot | it would be welcome |
| 23:12:06 | larsbot | otherwise there's a risk that gra and I will steamroller over the committee because we are prepared and they are not |
| 23:12:21 | tmkal | who will be there ? |
| 23:12:34 | larsbot | don't have a precise list |
| 23:13:06 | larsbot | SRN, MB, Patrick, mariyo, drrho, Steve, Geir Ove, me, you, gra, I'd assume Bernard, Martin Bryan, at least |
| 23:13:21 | larsbot | probably not everyone will be there all the time |
| 23:13:30 | larsbot | oh, and I guess Sam Hunting will be there |
| 23:13:44 | larsbot | naito-san will not :-( |
| 23:13:45 | tmkal | aye, but probably enough resistance to the lmg/gra steamroller :)) |
| 23:13:48 | tmkal | :( |
| 23:13:58 | larsbot | with you there: maybe |
| 23:14:02 | larsbot | without you: no |
| 23:14:21 | tmkal | * tmkal blushes |
| 23:14:37 | larsbot | Steve is the only one who has much of an opinion |
| 23:14:49 | larsbot | though admittedly this might be different with the syntax |
| 23:14:58 | larsbot | we haven't actually discussed XTM before |
| 23:15:35 | tmkal | it can get people going when you discuss attribute names and values and all that |
| 23:15:42 | tmkal | as I recall from XTM 1.0 :( |
| 23:15:49 | tmkal | * tmkal shudders with pain |
| 23:16:03 | larsbot | yeah. thank god we don't have to come up with new names for anything :) |
| 23:16:11 | tmkal | :)) |
| 23:16:12 | larsbot | we're just trying to agree what the hell it means |
| 23:16:55 | tmkal | I think that the discussions around my sticking points will be interesting |
| 23:17:07 | larsbot | I agree. a lot of the other stuff is pedestrian |
| 23:17:14 | tmkal | especially the resourceRef one |
| 23:17:26 | tmkal | I mean it will be interesting, not pedestrian |
| 23:17:33 | larsbot | * larsbot understood :) |
| 23:17:37 | larsbot | though the xtm-topicMap-and-resourceRef issue is an absolute bastard |
| 23:17:55 | tmkal | yes |
| 23:18:41 | larsbot | actually, I think the added themes stuff was a mistake |
| 23:18:57 | tmkal | on mergeMap ? |
| 23:19:00 | larsbot | yeah |
| 23:19:08 | larsbot | both that and <mergeMap> smacks too much of end-user features |
| 23:19:12 | tmkal | possibly... |
| 23:19:14 | larsbot | rather than interchange syntax |
| 23:19:30 | tmkal | it might be that its late, but I had trouble working out what the issue there is |
| 23:19:36 | larsbot | HyTM was much simpler, and IMHO the better for it |
| 23:19:48 | tmkal | agreed on that |
| 23:20:06 | tmkal | at least it was simpler in that particular aspect ;-) |
| 23:20:29 | tmkal | do you think you can add an example of the problem to the slides ? |
| 23:20:30 | larsbot | yeah, archforms and HyTime made it not quite so simple after all :) |
| 23:20:35 | tmkal | :)) |
| 23:20:41 | larsbot | I can put in some more text |
| 23:20:49 | larsbot | and split the slide in two |
| 23:20:56 | tmkal | cule |
| 23:21:22 | tmkal | thinking about it a bit more, I think I'm not seeing the problem cos its not a problem for TM4J :-) |
| 23:21:43 | tmkal | there is a potential to merge and then find that you have to un-merge |
| 23:22:13 | larsbot | unmerge? |
| 23:22:21 | tmkal | aye |
| 23:22:25 | larsbot | oh, you mean, to add the themes? |
| 23:22:28 | tmkal | yes |
| 23:22:41 | larsbot | well, that won't work unless you preserve non-SAM information |
| 23:22:59 | tmkal | yes |
| 23:23:04 | tmkal | which TM4J does |
| 23:23:16 | tmkal | cos each Topic object maintains a list of merged Topic objects |
| 23:23:26 | tmkal | rather than modifying properties of the base Topic directly |
| 23:23:55 | tmkal | so I can pick out the set of characteristics which came from topic map A and replace them |
| 23:24:03 | tmkal | and when I do, TM4J works out the new merge set |
| 23:24:11 | tmkal | all by magic :) |
| 23:24:37 | larsbot | that's why you are 5-10 times slower than us and use lots more memory :-) |
| 23:24:43 | tmkal | :) |
| 23:25:18 | larsbot | it's a tradeoff, and going back to apply the scopes will be *very* costly |
| 23:25:31 | tmkal | yep |
| 23:26:23 | tmkal | I think that in truth the right way to handle this is to say that there are two inclusions of the topic map |
| 23:26:38 | tmkal | one with no added themes and another with added themes |
| 23:27:08 | larsbot | that raises a related issue: is it an error to have contradictory <mergeMap>s? |
| 23:27:19 | larsbot | that is, refs to same external doc with different added themes? |
| 23:27:41 | tmkal | not a processing error - but its something that a user might like to know about |
| 23:28:00 | larsbot | I tend to feel the same way |
| 23:28:03 | tmkal | in TM4J, no mergeMap or topicRef merge processing is done implicitly |
| 23:28:15 | larsbot | what do you mean? |
| 23:28:20 | tmkal | you can get a list of what topic maps were referenced and what added themes were specified |
| 23:28:42 | tmkal | then choose to merge in the referenced topic maps on a one-by-one basis |
| 23:29:06 | tmkal | so you can end up with a partially merged topic map if you want |
| 23:29:21 | tmkal | of course, there is standard code to just merge everything |
| 23:29:38 | larsbot | ah, I see. that makes sense |
| 23:29:51 | tmkal | but would require user intervention |
| 23:30:02 | tmkal | so must apps prolly end up doing the automatic merge of everything |
| 23:30:11 | larsbot | pretty sure 99% of them will |
| 23:30:16 | tmkal | yeah |
| 23:30:23 | larsbot | we've assumed users are not very interested in the form of their XTM |
| 23:30:26 | larsbot | so far we've been right |
| 23:30:44 | tmkal | I think its prolly true for almost all apps |
| 23:31:05 | tmkal | I think for topic map editing tools and maybe some gui tools you might want more fine-grained control though |
| 23:31:21 | larsbot | you would, but probably not over the XTM |
| 23:31:47 | tmkal | no, but you would want better control over the way that it is processed. |
| 23:32:11 | tmkal | e.g. "Don't merge in language.xtm from the topicmaps.org site" |
| 23:32:24 | tmkal | or "Never merge topic maps from www.techquila.com" :) |
| 23:33:01 | tmkal | gotta go now |
| 23:33:06 | tmkal | might be around tomorrow |
| 23:33:11 | larsbot | okay. thanks a lot for the review. it was very useful |
| 23:33:28 | tmkal | no problems, was nice to think about something other than my slides :) |
| 23:33:32 | larsbot | :-) |
| 23:33:35 | tmkal | tmkal has quit None ("Client Exiting") |