[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...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:28:00 -0500

> > > That is exactly my point. Users of the topic map are dependent on the
> > > meaning assigned by the topic map author, without having that meaning
> > > recorded for later reviewers to understand/verify. The same is true of
> > RDF.
> > > The meaning is solely in the view of the metadata author.
> > >
> >
> > But as far as I know (I might be wrong, please correct me if this is the
> > case)
> > RDF has no STANDARD! way to carry forward the origin of opinion.
>
> I think you're making pretty much the same mistake I was, but from a
> different angle.  RDF is merely the framework.  It is not the job of RDF
> to define the vocabulary for attribution.  There is no reason why you
can't
> use TM's vocab in RDF for this purpose.
>

This is actually exactly what I meant when suggested RDF Topic Maps
in my previous postings!

>
> > > Names and/or addresses are not enough to promote understanding.
> >
> > I agree, RDF Schemas can be of really great help here!
> > And I also agree that there is still a long - long way to go:-((
>
> Again, RDF schemas are merely frameworks.  It is what you put at the
> end-nodes of the arcs that make up RDF schemas that counts (at a minimum,
> what properties do you define on a class).  No reason why TM can't provide
> a mechanism for solving this problem in RDF.
>

I am afraid to go deep into this (or we will change camps :-))
RDF and especially RDF Schemas are very good
at defining "what properties do you define on a class"
Topic Maps HAD a mechanism for defining
properties and structured contexts by means of "facets".
Facets are dropped from XTM.
Watch out! RDF syntax can be used instead!
The idea of dropping facets was to make
processing model as simple as possible
and avoid mixing apples and oranges, or
(going  back to Michel's metaphor about Physics and Chemistry)
Quarks and Molecules.

Thanks,

Nikita.

PS
It is worth noting, however, that yes you do
have mechanism of expressing metadata in XTM
by means of <resourceData> within <occurrence> and <variant> elements.
But it is a questionable thing to do due to the
reasons mentioned above.


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

• 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
• Previous by thread: Re: "RDF + Topic Maps" = The Future
• Next by thread: Re: "RDF + Topic Maps" = The Future
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread