[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] rdf & topic maps
Bernard, Your points are all well taken. There are presently three code bases which I know of (Nikita, Kal and myself) which are capable of loading the open directory data into a topic map. (I believe that two of these are python-based, while the implementation I will put forward is Java.) You are correct regarding the not-quite-RDF. It is also not quite UTF-8. You are correct regarding the size, but the data can be partitioned, e.g., the business hierarchy can be excerpted (though at the loss of related and see also categories outside of the business hierarchy). Many users of the ODP do in fact pick and choose, and even re-map portions of the hierarchy into a new ontology. You point concerning catastrophic reorganization is exactly correct. There has been a debate on this list concerning a single ontology for all human knowledge. Such an ontology is only viable if it supports multiple parallel classification systems -- but a topic map can do just that. Managing those parallel views them becomes another challange. Kal, Nikita and I have discussed using public subject choosen in common so that each of these topic map views of the ODP will be commensurate. I, at least, have broached the subject of publishing a cross-map, which would use the Cyc upper ontology provide an alternative topic semantics for the ODP. This would be a fascinating example of the merging topic maps. -bryan -----Original Message----- From: Bernard Vatant [mailto:universimmedia@wanadoo.fr] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 5:48 AM To: bryan@globalwisdom.org; Michel Biezunski Cc: xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] rdf & topic maps Bryan, Michel As a former editor at Open Directory, I think I have a few things to say about that. When I left ODP last year, I thought also about other mapping(s) of the Directory. (it was before I knew the very existence of Topic Maps concept at all !) Now I think such projects have important shortcomings : 1. ODP uses, as far as I know, some version of RDF syntax which is not the last one. Am I correct ? 2. ODP RDF dump is a huge, not to say monstruous, thing, which will be more and more heavy to handle, and that you must take as a whole : there is no way to use only a part of it, by the very structure of links. 3. ODP is a very unstable structure, with a chaotic behaviour. Reorganizations are bound to occur at any moment at any scale : since no single-hierarchy ontology is able to represent the complexity of the Web it is supposed to map, at any moment, the existing structure at any hierarchy level is the image of the present view of the world of the editor(s) having power at this level. These human parameters are bound to provoke imprevisible catastrophic changes. At the bottom of this issue in the very incapacity of a basically single-hierarchy structure to represent complexity. Try to find out the representation of some complex knowledge fields in ODP, like environment, sustainable development, fair trade ... and you'll find it's completely exploded in many distinct, overlapping and/or redundant categories, often ignoring each other, with no way to have the synthetic vision Topic Maps can achieve. Attempts to solve this problem are the main cause of permanent reorganizations, every new editor thinking he/she has THE solution, and will apply it as soon as he/she has the power to do so. (ODP is really a very exciting power game, just try it if you can spare the time, it's more thrilling and dangerous than Quake 3). That's the main reason, among others, why I left ODP. And I don't see how a TM representation of ODP can make more than reproduce or show evidence of this fundamental shortcoming. 4. ... last but not least : the links in ODP are not "translatable" IMO in equivalent TM associations, except the class/subclass relationship. I mean by that cross-links (non-hierarchical) between categories : "see also" "related category" are left to the local editor's good or bad will, and given the loose collaborative spirit going on, despite fine formal guidelines about it, many cross-links are one-way only. It seems that some progress have been made on that point lately anyway. Moreover, these cross-links have no semantic definition, which means the roles of two categories in the association representing a cross-link (provided it's a two-ways link) are only defined in the editor's mind that made the link ... and it's non-adressable :)) [For information of the list] There are presently two ways to use ODP : either download/update RDF every week/month/ ... anything you can afford to manage - 2,362,178 sites - 34,199 editors - 341,152 categories are present figures - or to use it "live", which some software do already, like anaconda www.anaconda.net All that being said : ODP "chaotic ontology" is de facto a reference, given it's the biggest web directory, and its structure can be used for free - if you can afford managing it. It should be fine to show that XTM can handle that, show its shortcomings ... and eventually propose a new directory paradigm, keeping the fine "humans do it better" principle, but enabling an effective management of complexity. Good luck Bryan :)) Keep in touch, I'm very interested anyway in whatever you can get to with that project. ----- Message d'origine ----- De : Bryan Thompson <bryan@globalwisdom.org> À : Michel Biezunski <mb@infoloom.com> Cc : Jason Markos <jsm@empolis.co.uk>; <xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com> Envoyé : vendredi 9 février 2001 05:37 Objet : [xtm-wg] rdf & topic maps > Michel, > > I plan to publish a translator from the open directory, which is exported > as RDF, to XTM 1.0. My intention was to do this as part of the > topicmaps.org > site. I see such code examples are a necessary aspect of marketing XTM. > > Is there a particular reason why you are compiling such things for the > infoloom > site? I've been talking some with Jason about XTM marketing and it seems > that > the "marketing group" should draft a soliciation of examples, code, etc. for > topicmaps.org. > > Your thoughts? > > -bryan > > > > To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~> eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/981761305/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC