Talk:Development: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=== Why not use OPML for storage instead of FreeMind's native XML format === | |||
: ''No longer relevant consideration:'' | |||
The current version of [http://www.opml.org/ OPML] is not suited for our purposes. It should be easy to create conversion XSLT between FreeMind and OPML. First, if we decided to use OPML, we would have to wait until the owner of OPML changes his standard to fit our needs. Thus, we would be dependent, not being able to act dynamically. Second, already the current version of OPML is insufficient. It does not contain most of what FreeMind already uses: colors, fonts, folded tag, edges and icons. It is not a superset of FreeMind's XML format, even not in a vague sense. Even if I renamed the elements names properly, OPML would still be a subset and not superset of FreeMind's XML. As a result, we have no benefit from using OPML right now. | |||
''Summary:'' 1) we would run into dependence, and 2) OPML is insufficient, loosely speaking it is a subset. | |||
== ontology description language == | == ontology description language == | ||
Revision as of 09:42, 28 October 2007
Why not use OPML for storage instead of FreeMind's native XML format
- No longer relevant consideration:
The current version of OPML is not suited for our purposes. It should be easy to create conversion XSLT between FreeMind and OPML. First, if we decided to use OPML, we would have to wait until the owner of OPML changes his standard to fit our needs. Thus, we would be dependent, not being able to act dynamically. Second, already the current version of OPML is insufficient. It does not contain most of what FreeMind already uses: colors, fonts, folded tag, edges and icons. It is not a superset of FreeMind's XML format, even not in a vague sense. Even if I renamed the elements names properly, OPML would still be a subset and not superset of FreeMind's XML. As a result, we have no benefit from using OPML right now.
Summary: 1) we would run into dependence, and 2) OPML is insufficient, loosely speaking it is a subset.
ontology description language
I am wondering if OWL the ontology description language is somehow connected to the XML-dialect of freemind. It would be wonderful to be capable of browsing extensive namespaces (including mindmaps of course) like it is done in Thinkmap or their application The visual thesaurus. I guess freeMind is an intrigius approach to achieve something like the standard browser within wikis and knowledgebases including the whole [www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]. What seems to be missing are:
- weighted links (logical and/or continuous e.g. [part of], [equivalent to 70%], ..., [not equal 30%])
- dynamic loading of content
- dynamic display and application (also within small areas)
- user interaction and external program control (i.e. switch to next Wiki-page)
Well it might help the Semantic Web to become a reality.
Besides it would be interesting to have something like FreeMind as a browser for any namespaces found in databases, especially those used for programming applications.
need more info on: FreeMind's xml data format (.mm)
How are the
- created
- mofified
- ID
numbers or timestamps created?
I am trying to write a program to automatically create simple mindmaps. --GunterS 09:33, 10 Mar 2007 (PST)
