• From: "Peter Hunsberger" <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• To: "Nathan Young -X (natyoung - Artizen at Cisco)" <natyoung@c...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:19:53 -0500

On 9/22/06, Nathan Young -X (natyoung - Artizen at Cisco)
<natyoung@c...> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> As far as I understand it, topic maps match what you describe below in
> significant ways.

Yes, Topic Maps are probably a good match up for some of it.  However,
we keep looking at topic maps as more of a higher level tool for
analysis rather than at the inner working level.  That may just be due
to a lack of experience with the technology...

>
> It would allow for the dynamic merging you describe in the first
> paragraph (quoted below), though at this time the implementations lag
> far behind those in the relational world in terms of maturity and
> standardization.

That sort of confirms my comment above; we really do need a solid and
efficient mechanisms for  managing this all. Perhaps it will come in
time?

> From your second paragraph (below) topic maps use hierarchical documents
> to represent graph structures as you describe.  In the topic maps
> paradigm you wouldn't usually "reference [an] embedded relationship
> graph from the primary document" unless I misunderstand your meaning in
> this.

No, we don't really do that explicitly either: the discovery of link
relationships is done by the mapping of the relationship documents to
the primary document by an external process (XSLT in our case)....

> The third paragraph could be describing topic maps verbatim if you cut
> off everything from the first mention of css onward.

And that's the point where the discussion veers away from linking and
into transport and presentation, though that's an important part of
the whole package if you want to have the thing gain traction at all
levels...

-- 
Peter Hunsberger

• References:
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)" <natyoung@c...>