[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: "RDF + Topic Maps" = The Future

• From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@c...>
• To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>,Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:10:13 -0500

Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> Just to add my 0,02 Euros to what Jonathan is saying, it is probably
> over simplistic, but I tend to see RDF as a XML generic syntax to
> describe statements and Topic Maps as one of the applications that could
> have used this syntax even though it is currently following its own
> path.
>

Eric is right,
Topic Maps are specifically designed for meta-layer "maps" on the top
of information resources.
Hence the slogan "GPS of the Information Universe"
This map can go as detail as its author wants.
So theoretically Topic Maps can be used for what
XML, ASCII, RDF, etc. can be used.
But it is like "using cannons to shoot sparrows" (Russian proverb)
(By the way, for those who do not know yet: it is my hobby :-))

And the lowest details is where Topic Maps can use RDF.

So Lisa is absolutely right:
> It's downright exciting!

Thanks,

Nikita.

-------------------------------------------------------
Nikita Ogievetsky, Cogitech Inc.
http://www.cogx.com
nogievet@c...
(917)406-8734
Consultant in XML/XSLT/Xlink/TopicMaps
Cogito Ergo XML


----- Original Message -----
From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
To: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@c...>
Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: "RDF + Topic Maps" = The Future


> > > Both RDF and Topic Maps have the same weakness: They are only as good
as
> > the
> > > semantics they are based on. Neither provides a standardized mechanism
for
> > > recording the meaning of the characteristic
> >
> > I tend to disagree.
>
> My guess is that you're talking about a different sort of "meaning" than I
> am familiar with.
>
> > XTM distinguishes 2 types of topic subjects:
> > addressable and non-addressable.
> > If resource is referenced as an addressable subject, it means
> > that the subject of the topic is the resource itself
> > (just as you said, no meanings or implications)
> > Syntactically it is expressed by means or <resourceRef> element.
> >
> > Extract from [1]:
> > A subject which is an addressable information resource, considered as a
> > subject in and of itself, and not considered in terms of what the topic
map
> > author intends it to signify.
> >
> > However,
> > a resource or a set of resources can be used to identify a
non-addressable
> > subject.
> > For example I can address archives of this list to identify xml
developers
> > community.
> > Or I can identify a book by its ISBN number (which is a record somewhere
in
> > Bowker Data Collection Center).
> > Syntactically it is expressed by means or <subjectIdentityRef> element.
>
> I'm sorry, all I'm hearing you say is that XTM allows differentiation of
> the arcs.  This isn't a big deal as far as I see it.  It doesn't even
> approach the problem of semantics according to any definition with which
> I'm familiar.
>
> Don't get me wrong, RDF does have the same problem as Martin says, as does
> XML itself.  But I hear nothing from you that says that Topic Maps does
> not.
>
>
> --
> Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
> uche.ogbuji@f...               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
> Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com
> 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
> Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
>
>
>

• References:
  • Re: "RDF + Topic Maps" = The Future
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" = TheFuture]
• Next by Date: Re: "RDF + Topic Maps" = The Future & RDF? TM?
• Previous by thread: Re: "RDF + Topic Maps" = The Future
• Next by thread: Re: "RDF + Topic Maps" = The Future
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread