[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Topic Maps,DAML, RDF, and others?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Williams, Tim" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Xml-Dev (E-mail)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:02:24 -0500
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
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.
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Williams, Tim [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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?