Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com>
- To: Nikita Ogievetsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:09:22 -0700 (MST)
> > 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.
My guess is that you're talking about a different sort of "meaning" than I
am familiar with.
> 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.
I'm sorry, all I'm hearing you say is that XTM allows differentiation of
the arcs. This isn't a big deal as far as I see it. It doesn't even
approach the problem of semantics according to any definition with which
Don't get me wrong, RDF does have the same problem as Martin says, as does
XML itself. But I hear nothing from you that says that Topic Maps does
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
email@example.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python