Re: [topicmaps-comment] RE: OASIS vs W3C

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

[thomas passim]

> No, the real difference is that Topic Maps are specialized into a few
> structures that - we hope - are widely useful.  We can write software
> to use those structures. [...]

> On the other hand, with Topic Maps, you still have to handle all the
> pieces at some point, and the range of options and specializations
> (baseNameStrings, variants, and parameters, for example) make it
> harder to index the database/knowledgebase.  Specialization vs
> generalisability.

This is exactly the function that the topic map graph (TMPM4) performs
-- handling all the pieces that are specialized in markup for
interchange in a generalized way for database/knowledgebase uses. 

> Another potential difference is the support each system gives for
> ontology and logic building.  Here, RDF has RDF Schemas, while Topic
> Maps has nothing but some PSIs so far.

Again, the templating mechanism in TMPM4 can perform this function.

[thomas passim]
> So as Tony says, the benefits of one vs. the other are not all that
> clear-cut at this point.

At a 30,000 foot level, I think the differences are clear -- at least
in RDF schema, I'm struck by how often it is stated that RDF is for
machines -- whereas topic maps are for both humans and machines
("humans are the ultimate arbiters of subject identity.") 

S.


=====
<!-- "Saving civilization through markup." -->

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com