RE: [regrep] [Topic Maps vs. RDF][Fwd: [egov] Re: [huml] The Office of Justice Programs's (OJP) Justice XML Data Dictionay]

["John Gillerman" <john.gillerman@sisconet.com>]

I agree that RDF style triples could be used.  Triples can refer to non RDF
data (such as WSDL, BPML, or XSD). An RDF API approach that includes the
ability to take non RDF data as payload is a valid one.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Mattocks [mailto:CarlMattocks@CHECKMi.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:01 PM
To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org; egov@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [regrep] [Topic Maps vs. RDF][Fwd: [egov] Re: [huml] The
Office of Justice Programs's (OJP) Justice XML Data Dictionay]


Agreed (again) -
An API supporting RDF Triples should support any and all of the
proposed(Topic Map / OWL / Z395 )  interactions .

Indeed, it is envisioned that the validity of an RDF API approach will be
heavily debated by the members of the proposed  ebXMLRegistry Semantic
Content sub-TC.


<quote who="David RR Webber">
> Carl,
>
> Yes.
>
> But in the context of APIs - no reason why the one API mechanism
> cannot be the underpinning - just the content and query details and
> information returned will change depending on the task you are
> performing.  You may also have operations that are specific to
> a domain - so in Topic Maps you may have something like
> "getRelatedChildrenByContext()" that would have no meaning
> for other metadata access.
>
> Overall though you want a consistent way that this is all
> engineered so implementers are having to re-invent the
> same wheel multiple ways.
>
> Thanks, DW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Mattocks" <CarlMattocks@CHECKMi.com>
> To: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>; <egov@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [regrep] [Topic Maps vs. RDF][Fwd: [egov] Re: [huml] The
> Office
> of Justice Programs's (OJP) Justice XML Data Dictionay]
>
>
>> I agree with David's statement.  To fully support e-Business each type
>> of
>> interaction needs to be supported by an appropriate structure. Such as,
>>
>> Topic Maps to manage an index of content e.g. List of OASIS TC's
>>
>> OWL Ontology to allow an agent-based registry client to interrogate and
>> extract classified content e.g. OASIS Registry of Specifications
>>
>> RDF to declare how an ontology describing all the components of a
>> particular TC's  specification is related to the OASIS lists of Topics
>>
>> Z395 to define how the content of multiple federated registries /
>> catalogs
>> / repositories can be presented in one result set e.g. Melded content
>> from
>> OASIS Registry, Public UDDI
>>
>>
>>  <quote who="Chiusano Joseph">
>> > On the subject of Topic Maps vs. RDF: The e-mail below is from David
>> W.
>> > to the E-Gov TC, in May 2003 (I wanted to supply the URL, but the
>> E-Gov
>> > TC list archive is broken). Here, David states:
>> >
>> > <Quote>
>> > For eBusiness integration RDF is not the right tool.  It's
>> > more at home supporting topic maps in document
>> > management systems and networks of conceptual
>> > linkages and associations.
>> > </Quote>
>


--
Carl Mattocks CEO CHECKMi
Operational Intelligence OEM
-------------------------------
e-Business Agents
Semantically Smart Compendiums
-------------------------------
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.
php.