[xtm-wg] Again: How might we tie more formal semantics to TMs?

[Alexander Sigel <sigel@bonn.iz-soz.de>]

dear xtm-ers,

(quite long, but very fundamental, i fear)

while exploring Matt Sergeant's (matt@sergeant.org)
perl solution xml::xpath for playing around with TMs,
and having just discovered his also GPLed AxKit
(apache + xml toolkit, in perl, from axkit.org), i encountered
a strongly rdf-biased (popular) semantic web article i wanted
to share with you:
  http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/11/07/semanticweb/index.html?wwwrrr_rss

and this gives again rise to the deeper question posed before:

(cf. also email by:
- me (alex sigel) to infoloom list and xtm-wg 2000-06-19,
- answer by michel bizunski to infoloom list 2000-06-19
- jim farrugia to xtm-wg 2000-08-23,
- bryan thompson to xtm-wg 2000-08-24,
- hans holger rath to xtm-wg 2000-08-24)

given that most semantic web effort and research is now (or still?)
in rdf and description logic space:
what is (in topic map space) the current state of ideas how a topic map
construct may be experimentally and for research purposes tied to
more formal semantics?

let me naively ask:
how can/might/shall some axiomatic definition in an arbitrary conceptual
language for concepts and relations be associated with a TM item?
a) within some TM attribute (which?), in textual form, to be ignored
   by most other applications
b) as an attribute one can dynamically retrieve from a special registry,
   given the PSI
c) ...

quoting michel biezunski 2000-06-19:

> The topic maps standard, as it stands, has been designed in such a
> way that it can host all kinds of semantic models, and we have been
> very careful on NOT trying to infer from the model or the syntax
> anything that would preclude using one approach rather than the
> other. In other words, this is the reason why explicit semantics has
> been excluded from the general model.
>
> This should in principle make possible to use any of the model you
> describe with the topic maps standard as it stands.
>
> [...]
>
> if topic maps are used a neutral representation for any kind
> of semantics, then the existing conceptual graphs, semantic network, frames,
> etc. should be usable and there might be no need to start from scratch,
> since I don't see why the approaches that have been designed and tested over
> years in the knowledge community should not be used as such. The power and
> limitations of each of these approaches should not be different if these
> schemas are expressed in topic map syntax rather than in any other syntax.
>
> [...]
>
> the topic map model as it is now only deals with description of
> information. It doesn't preclude any kind of specific processing that would
> be done on it.

and quoting hans holger rath 2000-08-24:
> The concept is based on PSIs (Public Subject Identifiers)
> which have to be publicly registered by ISO or
> OASIS or whoever. This registration is everything what is needed,  
> no standard has to be changed, but TM tools can refer to the PSIs and
> support their semantic which is clearly defined together with the
> registration. This method allows definiton of various
> application dependent profiles (e.g. knowledge representation,
> subject classification, and other use cases).

apart from eric freese's work on inferencing with semantext, and
hans holger rath's "coloring/self-controlling" approach with templates:
is there anybody thinking about/working upon this? (obviously not
for xtm 1.0 and near future).
any examples?

the background is that there exists a system (for documentation,
terminology, semantic retrieval) that allows to describe concepts
in a concept language CLF (not to be confused with "common logical
foundation"). this language allows to define concepts independent
from languages and specialties. i'd like to learn how such CLF
structures might be attached (if ever) to a topic (or relation,
or whatever reificable). CLF has not only directed relations, but
also directed definitions, starting from top (everything).

recent literature (in german):
  "wortmodell und begriffssprache als basis des semantischen retrievals",
  by gerhard rahmstorf, in: knorz & kuhlen (eds.): informationskompetenz -
  basiskompetenz in der informationsgesellschaft. procs. 7th ISI 2000.
  (= schriften zur informationswissenschaft; 38). konstanz: UVK,
  pp. 71-87. (not electronically available).

maybe easier accessible for you, but noticeably 6 years older is:
  Rahmstorf, G.: A New Thesaurus Structure for Semantic Retrieval,
  in: Finding New Values and Uses of Information. Procs. 47th FID
  General Assembly, Tokyo, October 6-8, 1994, pp. 114-121.
  Idea: Extend the expressiveness and the application scope of thesauri.
  The new thesaurus consists of the thesaurus (concept) structure and the
  thesaurus language. These features make the proposed thesaurus structure
  useful for more sophisticated applications such as semantic retrival,
  knowledge based applications and computational linguistics. The proposed
  thesaurus is a step toward a general format for the coding of words and
  word meanings. It should support the exchange of data between thesaurus
  experts, linguists and developers. 

i am looking forward to the dallas notes, although it is currently
almost impossible to catch up.
alex
----------------------------------------------
Alexander Sigel, M.A. sigel@bonn.iz-soz.de
Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften, R&D
Lennéstr. 30, D-53113 Bonn, Germany
+49 228 2281 170 tel, +49 228 2281 120 fax
Homepage: http://index.bonn.iz-soz.de/~sigel/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/337252/_/974216428/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com