Re: [topicmapmail] Business Applications

Hi,

I've been reading all of the comments and I'm taking note of all of them
because they all seem very valuable to me. I'm verry thankful really.

I agree in that there is some kind of solitaire fashion that one feels like
when coming to this at first. And I also think that maybe I seem a little
'universal' in the needs/features I would like to implement and address
too. And also that it would seem very unrealistic to come 'from the ground
up' with a tool that addresses everything.

So, I'm trying to narrow a little the scope and try to reflect this into an
updated document. It only adds a section named 'Application Model' in
respect to the first but if I'm making my point there, a general purpose
tool can be thought as a layer that is useful when someone tells it what to
do (quite like a traditional RDBMS or framework or programming language).
So, its it could be understood that there be models narrowing this
'universality' but without losing the benefits of a layer of semantics for
future integration, merging and maybe interoperability of 'semantic
application instances'.

https://cognescent.googlecode.com/files/Brochure2.pdf

I also would like to implement this in Java, so I'm describing the initial
layout of packages and their functionalities into the Google Code hosted
project repository, in a document named 'packages.txt':

https://code.google.com/p/cognescent/source/browse/trunk/Cognescent/src/packages.txt

It is far from being more than a draft specification of components and
their features. It reflects the partitioning of the proposed software model
and where and what could be done. My actual coding time is not much and I'm
doing this alone. Whenever updates become available they'll be published.
It would be also greatly appreciated if someone can help somehow in the
creation of a development team for this project.

Thanks in advance!
Sebastian.


On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>wrote:

>  Quintin,
>
>
> On 08/19/2012 07:10 AM, Quintin Siebers wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
>  We've been working on such a system for a few years now, and our current
> version is open to have a look at:
>
>  http://en.mssm.nl/software/kamala-in-the-cloud/
>
>
> Good point but Kamala requires (as any topic map application does) that
> you establish what subjects you want to talk about, their identifies,
> relationships, etc. Having said that, you can fill it with whatever content
> you like.
>
> My objection to Sebastian's needs/features is their universal nature.
>
> If I were writing a topic map for business expenses, it would be very
> unlikely to include the rules for receipts written in cuneiform (the
> earliest business document is a receipt for beer at an inn). Not that topic
> maps can't do that, but most clients are unlikely to be interested. For
> that matter, of the thousands of natural languages in existence, most
> clients are going to be interested in only one (1). Topic maps can do more
> but again, probably not a requirement.
>
> You can see where this is going.
>
> I think topic maps shine brightest meeting the semantic requirements of
> actual customers.
>
> That someone, somewhere, off the Net most likely, is not best served by my
> topic map is quite likely.
>
> But, I am not arrogant enough to presume to act in their best interest,
> never having asked what they want, much less their permission.
>
> Is the "digital divide" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide) the
> new "white man's burden? (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Man%27s_Burden)"
>
> Hope you are having a great weekend!
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>   Quintin Siebers
>
>  --
> q.siebers@mssm.nl
> (+31) (0)6 - 11 06 16 27
>
>
>  Morpheus Kennistechnologie BV
>  <URL: http://www.mssm.nl >
> postbus 69
> 3500 CD Utrecht
> KVK 30 26 04 30
>
>  On 19 aug. 2012, at 13:03, Alexander Johannesen <
> alexander.johannesen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hola,
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:52 PM, adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is what you are proposing really possible from the ground up? I wonder if
> even getting an architecture is possible from the ground up, i.e. without
> starting with real world compromises dictated by the job in hand.
>
>
> Not sure if what's proposed is possible from the ground up, but I know
> it's certainly possible to create an ontology-based complete system,
> however I doubt "from the ground up" has been defined enough at this
> point. I've worked on creating full-stack application and systems
> delivery framework based on ontologies / Topic Maps, both in terms of
> integration but also as a development tool, and as a way to infer
> capabilities of services based on their entity / resource rather than
> clumsy API's.
>
> I'm fairly confident that it's the way of the future, but as you
> probably allude to as well, it's still a bit way off, mostly because
> whomever comes up with it first or already doing it, are doing it in
> solitary, much like the TM community watching the spectacle of RDF
> from the side-lines.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
> --
> Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
> --- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
> ------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing listtopicmapmail@infoloom.comhttp://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
>
>
> --
> Patrick Durusaupatrick@durusau.net
> Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
> Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
> Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
>
> Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
> Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
> Twitter: patrickDurusau
>
>