Comments on: A Call To Action: The Need For A Common Mind Map File Format

By: Eric Blue’s Blog » Blog Archive » Mindjet MindMap Sharing Just Got Easier

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:49:02 +0000

[...] For quite a while, I’ve been advocating the need to bring mind maps to the masses (read my Call to Action), and have taken steps to create an experimental Universal Mindmap Viewer. One major pain point of [...]

By: Eric Blue's Blog

Eric Blue's Blog — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:06:37 +0000

Mind & Concept Mapping Software Interoperability

Vic Gee at mind-mapping.org has spent the last few months collecting information on a various mindmap formats, and how to import/export between them. Vic’s site is: … collection of information about how mind mapping software can communicate. Some pac…

By: Vic Gee

Vic Gee — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:02:59 +0000

Coming in late here, because I’ve been exploring various avenues on this including emailing all mind map software authors, but I’m now able to announce something useful and this is a relevant thread.

No, not a common format - I did volunteer to try to at least build an abstract data model but there wasn’t enough support and the likely problems, well outlined in comments here, were clear.

So as a half-way house, I decided to build an information repository covering what already can exchange with what, where to find information on the formats of files, XSLT files where someone has already built one an made it public, and so on.

It’s here: http://www.mind-mapping.org/interoperability-of-mind-mapping-software/

Any additions, corrections or suggestions gratefully received. (vic at the domain below)

Vic http://www.mind-mapping.org The master list of mind mapping & information management software

By: Nick Duffill

Nick Duffill — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:03:32 +0000

Actually, there is a precedent for this - MPX, a public project file exchange format, intended to solve a similar issue in the project management software world. The issue arises because there are so many different tools around to create maps. We don’t use two or three different types of word processor, otherwise the same issue would arise there too. Mindjet publish their XML file format, but vendors will probably resist a common format not to “lock users in” but to ensure that the format natively supports the features that are important in their product. Where interoperability issues have been solved by standardisation and common protocols, the market force driving it has always been that the vendors need to interoperate to sell their wares. Currently this force does not exist within the mind mapping software marketplace (apart from enabling product migration), whereas there are clearly forces driving vendors to integration with Office and so on.

Although it would be desirable for a common file format to include decoration and task information, for example, this depends heavily on individual product capabilities. Common standards will gravitate towards the lowest common denominator, which could be pretty low. Standards Committees can end up unable to agree on anything that gives anyone even the slightest advantage.

The lowest common denominator is a plain text outline. This orphans many additional features, but has the advantage of portability to other formats too.

To create an interoperation standard for software mind maps I think you have to go beyond physical attributes such as colour, icons, callouts and so on, and instead encode the meta-information that they represent, such as importance, action, risk etc. Establishing this common conceptual language would be a significant challenge, but a worthwhile one.

By: Eric Blue

Eric Blue — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:22:42 +0000

Danny,

Thanks for the detailed response. See my commentary:

http://dannyayers.com/2007/03/27/re-re-a-common-format

By: Eric Blue

Eric Blue — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:09:34 +0000

Alex,

Great point on saving the project task info. I personally don’t use this feature a lot, but I know quite a few people who do. This is certainly something to consider when defining the format.

By: Eric Blue

Eric Blue — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:05:56 +0000

Steve,

I appreciate your advice, and thanks for the pointer to topic maps. I actually spent a short amount of time researching XTM last year. But, for some reason I was fixated on the visual/presentation side of the mindmap format, and didn’t see this as an obvious candidate. See my follow-up comment on Danny’s blog regarding this presentation challenge.

Believe it or not, I was originally inspired a few months ago when I came across a post on JTM (JSON for Topic Maps).

http://www.cerny-online.com/topincs/technical-whitepaper

I was thinking that it would be a neat idea to take some visualization library (maybe something like JSViz, but without the force directed effect) and render a mindmap using the JTM notation.

Topic maps (XTM in this case) definitely looks interesting and I plan on digging into this further. And, I’ll certainly take you up on your offer to provide some help in this area.

By: Larry Hendrick

Larry Hendrick — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:39:14 +0000

I think you have several valid points, and so does Steve on his website. Chuck Frey also make some good points today on the subject.

Probably the best thought from Steve is the difference in what mind maps are to different companies. Each works different and uses different terminology. For instance, if I make a stand alone comment in Concepts MindMap, what does FreeMind do to handle that bit of code. It doesn’t have that function (that I know of).

This could become an interesting topic as it moves forward.

By: AlexTG

AlexTG — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:37:54 +0000

Thank you Eric, very interesting post. There is one more difficult you’ve not mentioned: almost any mind mapping software supports project tasks information. The common file format should support this deeper integration between mind mapping and project management software since it’s market demand. But there are no common project task info format and that could be a problem.

By: Danny

Danny — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:47:51 +0000

Hi Eric, I’ve responded at length over here.