Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com>
- To: Nikita Ogievetsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:23:06 -0700 (MST)
> > That is exactly my point. Users of the topic map are dependent on the
> > meaning assigned by the topic map author, without having that meaning
> > recorded for later reviewers to understand/verify. The same is true of
> > The meaning is solely in the view of the metadata author.
> But as far as I know (I might be wrong, please correct me if this is the
> RDF has no STANDARD! way to carry forward the origin of opinion.
I think you're making pretty much the same mistake I was, but from a
different angle. RDF is merely the framework. It is not the job of RDF
to define the vocabulary for attribution. There is no reason why you can't
use TM's vocab in RDF for this purpose.
> > Names and/or addresses are not enough to promote understanding.
> I agree, RDF Schemas can be of really great help here!
> And I also agree that there is still a long - long way to go:-((
Again, RDF schemas are merely frameworks. It is what you put at the
end-nodes of the arcs that make up RDF schemas that counts (at a minimum,
what properties do you define on a class). No reason why TM can't provide
a mechanism for solving this problem in RDF.
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