RE: Another such tool: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Mind mapping tool
>The web site tells you everything except how much it costs and how to get
>it. Any time I see this sort of thing, I assume that it is going to cost a
>*lot* more than I am willing to pay. Plus, it annoys me not to be able to
>get some idea of price. (01)
Heh - yes, it is frustrating. I must confess to the same sin, in that I've
got a lot of product description on the web, yet the product itself is as
yet vapourware - my own excuses are that I wanted to get some feedback
regarding what the users want, and that development time is exceeding
expectations (not uncommon!). (02)
Incidentally, <market research hat on> what would you consider a reasonable
price for such a tool? and what features would you consider essential? (03)
<salesman hat on> I can however assure you that my own product will be
priced such that it will be within most individual budgets (one of my
guiding principles is that I would buy it - and I've spent less than $200 in
total on software in the last year). (04)
Al - you mention that Compendium has the RDF characteristic, do you have any
more details? (05)
Cheers,
Danny. (06)
>Thanks,
>
>Garold (Gary) L. Johnson
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
>[mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of
>albert.m.selvin@verizon.com
>Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:08 AM
>To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
>Subject: RE: Another such tool: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Mind mapping tool
>
>
>In addition to the tools Danny mentions, Compendium
>(www.compendiuminstitute.org) has all the desired characteristics -- XML,
>RDF, and Jabber-friendly, represents nodes in multiple views (in fact it
>takes that quite far), etc.
>
>Al
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>@bootstrap.org on 10/29/2002 05:14:05
>AM
>
>Please respond to ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
>
>Sent by: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
>
>
>To: <ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org>
>cc:
>
>Subject: RE: Another such tool: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Mind mapping tool
>
>
>
>>Thanks. I read about something called "Grokker" last
>>night, too. Any word on that?
>>
>>Alex Shapiro wrote:
>>
>>> Here is some more info about Groxis
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/27/technology/27SOFT.html
>>> http://slashdot.org/articles/02/10/27/192225.shtml?tid=95
>>>
>>> So far I haven't found any info to impress me. It seems that all they
>do
>>> it take cluster suggestions such as those returned by www.vivismo.com
>and
>>> form a hierarchical map out of them. The problem with hierarchical
>views
>>> is that they don't give you a sense of how an item could fall
>>into multiple
>>> categories. This same data could have been rendered using Inxight's
>star
>>> tree.
>
>Or for that matter with TouchGraph (as Alex modestly neglects to mention)
>:
>http://www.touchgraph.com/
>
>I agree with Alex's point about the limitations of hierachical views, and
>it's a common drawback to virtually all the 'mindmapper' type tools,
>whatever their subject matter. For such tools to become *really* useful, in
>my opinion they will need to have at least two fundamental characteristics
>:
>a (node & arc) graph based model; a globally interoperable data format.
>There appear to be two major alternatives available for the model/format -
>XML Topic Maps (XTM) and Resource Description Framework (RDF). (I'm
>currently working on a tool of this type primarily using the latter).
>
>I'm sure that this has already been noted, but just for the record there's
>also the CMapTools tool :
>http://cmap.coginst.uwf.edu/
>which is already in very widespread use in schools etc, and from what I
>gather has until recently been using a proprietary format for data
>interchange, but will in the near future use XTM.
>
>Cheers,
>Danny.
>
>
>-----------
>Danny Ayers
>
>Idea maps for the Semantic Web
>http://ideagraph.net
>
><stuff> http://www.isacat.net </stuff>
>
>Semantic Web Log :
>http://www.citnames.com/blog
>
>
>
> (07)