Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
There is a long thread or a series of such in the archives on these topics. They are not competing approaches per se, they do overlap in the sense that all of them seek to create so-called metadata descriptions of relationships. Topic maps lean toward navigation and RDF leans towards inferencing. DAML is for agent modeling and uses RDF. Topic Maps are IMO, easier to learn. RDF is more suitable if you are thinking of building a Prolog-like expert system to support your application. It makes no difference which organization one gets the technical specification from if it works for the chosen purpose. Losing that "w3c vs ISO vs IETF" kind of thinking is a sign of maturity. Simply note the differences in processes so you can work out how, when and at what cost you will get the final published specification and how much access to the process you want and can afford. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Williams, Tim [mailto:twilliams@m...] Could someone describe these in comparison to one another? DAML seems to be built on top of RDF? I'm curious as to when one would use a Topic Map v/s DAML v/s RDF to describe their data and relationships to other data. Are Topic Maps and DAML competing approaches? and one last set of questions, Topic Maps appear to be ISO standards instead of w3c, why? and should this make a difference in deciding which to go with? ok, one more, is anyone currently have a system using these or other metadata markup languages (besides HTML meta tags) and care to describe their experiences so far?
|
