xml-dev - RE: "RDF + Topic Maps" = The Future

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Topic Maps are following a path laid 
out by its inventors before RDF existed. 
So, cat out of hat but don't blame the 
cat for that.

But do we have to have one or the other? 
Umm... has anyone seriously suggested that 
CSS should go away now that XSL:FOs can 
be used?  

From this seat, it looks to me as if Topic 
Maps will as other specs have, thrive on 
simplicity.  RDF may or may not depending 
on the complexity of applying and resolving 
all of these ontologies everyone is excited 
about.  Frankly, local rules prevail.  It 
helps if you can get the spec into a procurement 
so someone will pay the ontologists and 
authoritatively assert that their arcs are 
the holyArcs.

Sitting here watching the Dr Dobbs streaming 
videos from the conference, it is glorious to 
see Sperberg-McQueen lecturing on the state 
of the standards under the viewer header for 
"God and Computers; Donald Knuth".  I had 
always suspected this triple was in fact, 
the same URI.  I have applied to be the 
Manu of the next age, but that is purely 
an honorific URI and should not become 
part of the next layer of logical assertion. ;-)

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h