xml-dev - Re: "RDF + Topic Maps" = The Future & RDF? TM?

[Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>]

Hello Uche,

You said:
> > > <MyOriginElement rdf:ID="origin1">
> > >   <incstyle:remotestyle>
> > >     <rdf:Alt>
> > >       <incstyle:sheet incstyle:case="WML" xlink:href="wml.xslt"/>
> > >       <incstyle:sheet incstyle:case="IE5" xlink:href="ie.xslt"
> > > incstyle:param="version=5"/>
> > >       <incstyle:sheet incstyle:case="IE4" xlink:href="ie.xslt"
> > > incstyle:param="version=4"/>
> > >       <incstyle:sheet incstyle:case="other"
xlink:href="default.xslt"/>
> > >     </rdf:Alt>
> > >   </incstyle:remotestyle>
> > > </MyOriginElement>
> > >
> > > Again, I even included a few bonuses, and it's still quite simple.  Of
> > > course it does illustrate another of RDF's annoyances: that you must
> > > have a namespace on all attributes if you wish to them to be
considered
> > > abbreviated properties.
> >
> > OK, syntax looks nice. How about the meaning of it?
>
> There's a land mine.  What do you mean by "meaning"?

Actually, I mean author's opinion about meaning.
Or in Topic Maps slang:
meaning in the scope of author's opinion.

>
> > I would wonder to see the RDF schema behind "incstyle" namespace.
> > Please agree that no graph can be built for your example without knowing
the
> > schema.
>
> The schema is an important part of the graph, but I do think you might
> overstate it a bit.  Anyway, you have used one of the dreaded "S" words.
> By "schema", do you mean
>
> 1)  Data type constraints?
> 2)  Relational constraints?
> 3)  Processing plan?

Sorry, I meant RDF Schema as I was talking about RDF.
Are you trying top escape here? :-))

>
> > Also:
> > How do you know that WML is "Wireless Markup Language"
>
> ???  Maybe I'm missing something.
>
> <vocab:abbr>
>   <vocab:key>WML</vocab:key>
>   <vocab:full>Wireless Markup Language</vocab:full>
> </vocab:addr>

OK.
Now again, what is "abbr"? "key"? "full"?
This is why I am asking about RDF Schema.
Lets say I have another document with the following fragment:

<myvocab:abbriv>
   <myvocab:key>WML</vocab:key>
   <myvocab:desc>Wireless Markup Language</vocab:desc>
</myvocab:addriv>

Can machine even guess to suggest that these fragments might be
talking about the same thing?
As you are saying yourself , only the graph matters.
Of course XTM do not provide for any magic.
But its processing model makes the job of identifying things much more
straightforward.

Now note that XTM is Topic Maps concept expressed in XML syntax using simple
XLink (XML Topic Maps).
There can be an RDF syntax for Topic Maps!
(As Eric suggested)
If you will keep trying to match XTM processing model with RDF syntax you
will end
up with RTM (RDF Topic Maps)
Hey! then you can get right away the 4TM in the 4Suite! :-))
The problem is that just RDF Topic Maps syntax is not enough.
You will need additional software modules to take care of certain
constraints and the processing model.
Also I believe that RDF graph is completely different from XTM graph.
(even though they are confusingly using similar terms)
It will be very interesting to see if RDF Topic Maps is doable!
I may even try to do something over the coming holidays.

Nikita.

-------------------------------------------------------
Nikita Ogievetsky, Cogitech Inc.
http://www.cogx.com
nogievet@cogx.com
(917)406-8734
Consultant in XML/XSLT/Xlink/TopicMaps
Cogito Ergo XML