RE: Linkbases, Topic Maps,and RDF Knowledge Bases -- help me understand,
As the man's sig says, "real programmers can program assembly in any language". But we do have to consider cost. What one can do with the choice of representation and how much it costs to use that representation must be considered. Unless we are clear about the overlap and the difference we find ourselves doing too much, too little, reinventing yet another engine, or waiting for a specification to settle down so we can invent an engine we may not need. In all cases, understanding what works now is important. Simplicity is advantageous in terms of adequacy, not completeness. So when is the high level adequate and when should one bear the costs of creating and maintaining low level descriptions? Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Michel Biezunski [mailto:mb@i...] RDF and Topic maps address basically the same problem, but the layer of represention is different. Topic maps are better for "high level" description (chemistry), RDF is closer to what a computer actually does in terms of connecting granules of information (physics). I think what needs to be done is to articulate these two levels in the clearest possible way, and then take the features of topic maps and rdf and assign them to where they belong, while resolving the overlap. It's not an obvious task, but I think it's worth trying.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format