It’s here at last! The first publication of mind-mapping.org‘s information for mindmappers who want to interchange information between one mind mapping software package and another.
After several months of (spare-time) work I’ve finished putting all the information I’ve been ferreting out and begging for into a usable form, and in one place.
The hardest part was deciding how to present it. What I decided on was to show what can talk to the two most widespread packages, FreeMind and MindManager, as the strongest part of the visualization. I did something similar with the web-based software import / export picture, but this new one has additional information buttons that lead you separate pages all about the specific packages.
Also included is interchange information about software that doesn’t talk to the two top packages, with downloadable files in some cases and links to authoritative information in all cases. These are the separated boxes out on the right. All have some useful interchange information available, and that (plus letting me know about it) is the only qualification for a mindmapping or concept mapping package to appear on this list.
If you know of any similar information that I don’t have, if you make an XSLT for a pair not covered here, or if you can report specific problems with interchange routes, please let me know and I’ll publish updates and feedback.
Software authors and publishers – thanks for your help so far. If you think that interchange between maps is desired by users and will help the mind mapping market to grow, help me keep this reference site up to date.
That “standard mind map file” proposal
In case you’re wondering: Two people I contacted at the start of this mini-project thought I was proposing to develop a standard schema for mind map files. I could see big problems in getting agreement on this, but volunteered to give it a go if there was enough support. Having been heavily involved in formal data modelling for 7 years, I’m familiar with the techniques – and with the difficulty of satisfying all parties. Several people responded with scepticism, and a couple said ‘good’. I decided I needed much more support if it was to fly, so that’s why I went with the information repository approach.