[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [topicmaps-comment] back to the lists
Max - Oak Ridge National Labs is using topic maps along with a classifier and an inference engine to apply (help with) security classification markings to classified documents, based on each projects' classification guide. This is a very large and complex undertaking and apparently after a few iterations they found that topic maps worked much better for them than previous schemes they had tried. Here is a reference to the system - http://www.y12.doe.gov/~mxm/open/Papers/Ferret.PDF Cheers, Tom P > Sam, thanx for the info > > Yes, US IRS is a big one. WOn't argue on that :) > > Can u give me other names? > When I present the case to the UDDI TC I will be asked if the standard (XTM) > is widely adopted. I need to have the answer ready. > > Don't worry about the schema - I'll do my version of W3C and submit it to > the TC for consideration. At least it will save the others from reinventing > the wheel ;) > > Cheers, > Max > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Hunting" <shunting@etopicality.com> > To: "Max Voskob" <mvoskob@msi.net.nz> > Cc: "Bandholtz, Thomas" <TBandholtz@koeln.sema.slb.com>; > <topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>; <topicmapmail@infoloom.com> > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:57 PM > Subject: Re: [topicmaps-comment] back to the lists > > > > > I noticed some pessimism in terms of adoption. > > > Are there any implementations of XTM by big players? > > > > Does the US Internal Revenue Service count as a big player? > > > > > During the last UDDI meeting we discussed an option of using external > > > representation of taxonomies (it's a UDDI thing) and someone suggested > > > to look into XTM. This is the primary reason for me to contact you and > > > seek your cooperation. > > > > Certainly topic maps can be used for such purposes. I have done a topic > > map that integrates North American Industrial Classifiction System > > (NAICS) and Standard Industrial Code (SIC) taxonomies; Kal Ahmed has done > > done a similar project for UNSPEC. > > > > > Personally, I think that XTM is a good standard, but I wish I had a > > > schema for it! :) > > > > I have the project of a Reealx NG Schema on my plate -- would that help > > you out? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Max Voskob > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Bandholtz, Thomas > > > To: topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Cc: 'topicmapmail@infoloom.com' > > > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:32 AM > > > Subject: [topicmaps-comment] back to the lists > > > > > > > > > "Dear Oasis TM community" > > > > > > as a silent-for-months member of TC pubsubj and TC geolang, I feel > that I owe you a statement about my (dis-) appearance. > > > > > > Shortly after XML Europe last May, I had to focus (to earn my living) > on finishing an R&D project "Semantic Network Services (SNS)" and on some > company-internal work on KM and metadata. I followed the TM discussion, at > least kept track of the topics, and sometimes I was making up for a posting, > but - I still was somehow undecided ("mixed feelings", 2002) about some > basic issues, and I did not find a clear position fast enough. > > > > > > Now, SNS has been completed (at least more or less), and I start to > look over the surface again (...is this German lingo? ...) > > > > > > Last week I attended the "Open Forum 2003 on Metadata Registries" > (http://metadata-stds.org/OpenForum2003/) in Santa Fe, arranged by ISO/IEC > JTC1 SC32 WG2 (http://metadata-stds.org/). I followed and presented-in the > "Terminology and Ontology" track, and this gave me the final inspiration to > re-enter the discussion. > > > > > > In (relatively) short: > > > ++++++++++++ 1. Generally, discussion of TM should be more in the > context of what's happing outside in the world of metadata, ontology, etc. > As I have been confirmed once more in Santa Fe, there are many contiguous > applications for TM fitting into open ends of related standards like ISO > 11179, ebXML, UDDI, and Semantic Web - but people don't really know about > us - though most of them are curious about our possible contribution to the > game. > > > > > > On the other hand, there are several approaches out there that might > be adopted for open issues of our own world, like OWL, or the Extensible > Resource Identifier (XRI). > > > > > > ++++++++++++ 2. PSI > > > Every metadata initiative in the world is highly interested in a well > defined terminology for values, which PSI can provide. The most important > thing is that there really need to be unique and persistent URI for any of > the controlled terms. I think it is of less importance, to what these URI > really point. All the variants mentioned in > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/general > .htm must be supported, as they are real. > > > > > > The most important pre-requisite for PSI to go live are: organizations > that maintain them, in whatsoever form. ISBN work sufficiently (when did you > order a book last time?), as there is a strong and sustainable organization > behind them. > > > > > > It has been clearly agreed that we will not maintain PSI-sets > ourselves as a service. So, what is our contribution? > > > To my opinion, machine-readable PSI will play the strategic role in > the future (no problem for a machine to convert e.g. XTM into human-readable > HTML). > > > > > > There are (at least) two related approaches that we should include > into our considerations, if we don't want to finally find ourselves in a > maverick position ("small boats" are not necessarily faster, Robert :-): > > > > > > a) The handling of taxonomies in ebXML and UDDI (google for "taxonomy" > and one of the organization acronyms). We must fit into that and find our > "added value". > > > > > > (I am sure there is ... the concept of Topic Map is a valid template > in the vague world of Ontology ...). > > > b) OASIS Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) Technical Committee. > http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-01-08-a.html - why aren't we in this boat? > XRI is closely related to PSI, and we should get into this discussion. > > > > > > Karl Best had a very generic talk at the Open Forum (not yet on-line > today). He did not mention TM at all. But he was presenting a new > cross-organization standards registry initiative (kind of extended xml.org - > his slides will be on-line soon ...), and there was a slide showing > something that looked like a topic map. Why didn't he propose it to be one? > Diplomacy? Or doesn't he take us as a serious option? (see the related OASIS > RFP at http://www.oasis-open.org/documents/registry_rfp.pdf). > > > > > > ++++++++++++ 3. What interests me most, currently, is OWL > (http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-guide-20021104/). In my project work over > the last two years I found serious deficits in the XMLization of the topic > map concept. > > > > > > One simpler thing is that there is no normative XML Schema for topic > maps. If you want to use TM in a context like web services, any of these > today require an XML Schema to be integrated. It's easy to load the XTM DTD > into XMLSpy (or something) and convert it - needs some human cosmetics to > get it to work, but not too much - but that's not normative! There have been > lots of discussions about a TM Schema that I don't want to rehash - would be > enough to make it semantically as equivalent to the DTD as possible -agreed, > and "official". > > > > > > What's more crucial is the lack of a serialized formal definition of > the typology and constraints of a given topic map instance, such as which > topic types may play which role in which association in this domain (natural > lingo: "A string quartet consists of exactly 4 bowed string musicians: > typically 1st and 2nd violin, viola, and cello"). Something like this was > announced (http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0323.htm) to be > addressed in "ISO 19756: Topic Maps Constraint Language (TMCL)". Public > discussion of further work has finally started one week ago at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tmcl-wg/. Great! > > > > > > Reading the Web Ontology Language (OWL) development at > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/, I highly suspect that TM schema > definitions can be completely written in OWL by defining classes like > <tm:topic> as a subclass of <owl:thing>, and so provide the TM concept as an > implemented OWL "library" schema that can be incorporated into any work of > the Web Ontology movement. (May be integrate OWL-Wine and TM-Beer ... who'll > be doing the non-alcoholics ?). > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Sam Hunting > > eTopicality, Inc. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > "Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm) > > > > Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com > > Free open source topic map tools: www.gooseworks.org > > > > XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web. > > Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC