Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Eric van der Vlist <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:51:23 -0600
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
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
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. ;-)
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h