RE: Topic Maps,DAML, RDF, and others?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

There is a long thread or a series of such in the 
archives on these topics.   They are not competing 
approaches per se, they do overlap in the sense that 
all of them seek to create so-called metadata descriptions 
of relationships.  Topic maps lean toward navigation 
and RDF leans towards inferencing.  DAML is for agent 
modeling and uses RDF.   Topic Maps are IMO, easier 
to learn.  RDF is more suitable if you are thinking 
of building a Prolog-like expert system to support 
your application.

It makes no difference which organization one gets 
the technical specification from if it works for the 
chosen purpose.   Losing that "w3c vs ISO vs IETF" kind 
of thinking is a sign of maturity.  Simply note the 
differences in processes so you can work out how, when 
and at what cost you will get the final published specification 
and how much access to the process you want and can afford.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Tim [mailto:twilliams@mcia.osis.gov]

Could someone describe these in comparison to one another?  DAML seems to be
built on top of RDF? I'm curious as to when one would use a Topic Map v/s
DAML v/s RDF to describe their data and relationships to other data.  Are
Topic Maps and DAML competing approaches? 

and one last set of questions, Topic Maps appear to be ISO standards instead
of w3c, why? and should this make a difference in deciding which to go with?

ok, one more, is anyone currently have a system using these or other
metadata markup languages (besides HTML meta tags) and care to describe
their experiences so far?