RE: [tm-pubsubj] TR: Could owl:sameAs reference non-OWL resources?

["Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

Lars Marius

Quick and partial answer, more argumented one to come under the provocative
title "Are Topic Maps soluble in OWL?"
including comments on your quoted paper (which I have studied with great
interest).

We've envisioned several formats for PSI documentation and metadata, and
you have yourself provided XTM files for GeoLang PSIs. XTM is also to make
statements about the subjects, right?

My reasons for pushing that are both technical and political:

1. An ontology (whatever format) is basically a repository of
well-identified subjects (plus statements).
2. In OWL, subjects (classes, properties and instances) are identified by
URIs.
3. OWL provides all what is needed for expression of metadata about
subjects, and about the ontology itself.
4. OWL seems here to stay, and the more I look at it, the more I find it a
very well designed and powerful language, and that is bound to get a quick
and widespread adoption, as far as I can hear from customers and partners.
I know this opinion is far for being shared by everyone in the Topic Map
community, where it's usual (would I say fashionable) to dismiss whatever
is coming from W3C ... well. IOW what is implied by the above-quoted
provocative question is if OWL could supercede XTM as a Topic Map
interchange format (wait a minute, Lars Marius, don't shout yet, I'll
explain).
5. Jim Hendler, OWL working group chair, is really interested in
interoperability of OWL, Topic Maps and Published Subjects, and asked me to
comment the final OWL draft in that respect (dealine for that public
comment on OWL being May 9, BTW)

So, this is only a part of a big picture. Of course this committee is free
not to follow that path, but I would like to have at least the opportunity
to explain it.

Bernard

-----Message d'origine-----
De : larsga@pavarotti.intern.opera.no
[mailto:larsga@pavarotti.intern.opera.no]De la part de Lars Marius
Garshol
Envoye : lundi 28 avril 2003 13:43
A : tm-pubsubj
Objet : Re: [tm-pubsubj] TR: Could owl:sameAs reference non-OWL
resources?



* Bernard Vatant
|
| For information of the TC. The question of using OWL as a PSI format
| is one I want to put on the roadmap to be discussed in the London
| Agenda.

I think OWL and PSIs are orthogonal issues. OWL is for making
statements about the subjects, while we are concerned with how to
establish their identifiers.

This paper describes my thoughts on TM/RDF integration, including OWL:
  <URL: http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tmrdf.html >

Most of it based on working code.

--
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >