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

[Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>]

> > 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? :-))

No, probably just trying to move too far along in the debate.  RDF Schemas
(as in the current W3C rec) is not the only approach to RDF schemas (as in
the generic term) I can see.  The spec provides an arc-constraint
mechanisms, and it's up to you what you stuff in the nodes.  You can have
a dictionary, a pointer to a semantic repository such as ISO BSR, or
whatever else.  It is what is stuffed into those nodes _outside_ of RDF
that completes the processing, not the schema.  The schema is simply the
arc that moves you from the node of interest to the semantic "terminal".

You're claiming that XTM provides an entire semantic network mechanism
into its basic technology?  I'd be impressed if I could be convinced, but
based on what you've been saying so far, all XTM does in that direction is
to allow specialization of the arcs.  Martin Bryan already made some
arguments about the insufficiency of this, and I'd say he doesn't go far
enough.

Mind you, this isn't a claim I make about RDF either.

> > > 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?

They can if you provide the arcs to say so.  I must indeed be missing
something.

> 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.

IMO you haven't demonstrated this yet.  If you don't mind my
throwing a challenge back to you, Take the versions of the
WML -> "Wireless Markup Language", my version and the one you just
posted, and demonstrate how XTM relates them so transparently.

> 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! :-))

Actually, for TM work, I'd probably try to collaborate with the Ontopia
work, since I know and respect at least a couple of their developers (both
of whom are Pythoneers).


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.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