Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Nikita Ogievetsky <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:28:52 -0500
> Lisa wrote:
> > It's downright exciting!
> Both RDF and Topic Maps have the same weakness: They are only as good as
> semantics they are based on. Neither provides a standardized mechanism for
> recording the meaning of the characteristic
I tend to disagree.
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 :
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.
a resource or a set of resources can be used to identify a non-addressable
For example I can address archives of this list to identify xml developers
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.
Extract from :
An information resource, considered in terms of what the topic map author
intends it to signify, and not considered as a subject in and of itself.
Nikita Ogievetsky, Cogitech Inc.
Consultant in XML/XSLT/Xlink/TopicMaps
Cogito Ergo XML