Lists Home |
Date Index |
Steven R. Newcomb scripsit:
> > TM and RDF are equivalent in power.
> Yes and no. Since TMs can be expressed in RDF, you're
> right, and what you say is strictly true. However, it
> takes a lot of RDF statements to make a single TM
That means that they are not equivalent in *convenience*.
When I say they are equivalent in power, I mean it in the
same sense that assembly language and Prolog are said to be equivalent
in power: they are both Turing-complete. Likewise, RDF
and TM express arbitrary ground predications (Prolog facts)
about subjects (anything describable)/resources (anything
> I would argue that, in the realm of the Semantic Web
> and collaborative work, the TM-enhanced way of using
> RDF offers a certain vital power that RDF by itself
> does not offer. TMs offer a way for semantic nets to
> be self-maintaining in such a way that everything that
> might someday be regarded as substantive has already
> been reified.
Only if you have already constructed all possibly
useful topic maps.
> The Web world's omnivalent use of the term "resource"
The way people talk loosely is not the same as the face
of formal definitions. TM people tend to blur the
distinction between topics and topic elements, e.g.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all. There
are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language
that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.