RE: [xtm-wg] A challenge on "the graph"

["jean delahousse" <jean.delahousse@mondeca.com>]

Dear all

I feel a very low support for building a semantic graph vocabulary based on
graph theory to describe different semantic web specifications and try to
get general processing models that will be useful to navigate, query and
process large XML semantic networks made of XTM, XML document, RDF document
all linked together (as it will happen)

Mondeca will go at its own pace doing this work and when we'll have
something to share will do. If anyone wants to participate to that work we
will be happy to work together.

I hope you'll attend those two presentations during XML2001 in Berlin

http://www.gca.org/attend/2001_conferences/europe_2001/topicmaps.htm

sincerely

jean


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Lars Marius Garshol [mailto:larsga@garshol.priv.no]
Envoye : mer. 21 mars 2001 21:54
A : xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com
Objet : Re: [xtm-wg] A challenge on "the graph"



* Sam Hunting
|
| I have had the concerns expressed to me regarding "the graph" (what
| some of us have been calling the processing model) is not The Right
| Thing and may be The Wrong Thing. Better to resolve this issue now,
| rather than later, eh?

I certainly agree! Later may in fact turn out to be too late, so the
sooner this is decided the better.

| "the graph" has been fully (if verbosely) expressed in the AG Review
| Draft of 2000-12-04, released in DC.

| It seems reasonable to me, that the best way to show that "the graph"
| is the wrong thing, would be to go to the www.topicmaps.org, download
| the AG Review Draft, study it, and give feedback on it.

My concerns with the graph formalism are mainly these:

 - it is far removed from the actual form of implementations, making
   it much harder to understand for implementors, which are after all
   the intended audience

 - it is insufficiently detailed in that some properties of the nodes
   in the graph are left out, even properties of great importance to
   processing

 - the form the graph is specified in (property-less nodes connected
   by arcs with endpoints of two types) causes the description to
   become difficult to follow, since everything is so type-less and so
   very similar everywhere

However, I think complaining about these things is far less effective
than showing what I mean by actually presenting an alternative that
uses the kind of formalism I would prefer. I think that would make it
far easier for people to decide what they think is the better
formalism.

I will present a sketch of such a processing model in my next posting.

| If there is anything I can do to assist this process, please let me
| know.

I think you have done what you possibly can for now.

| P.S. I heard a rumor to the effect that one vendor had done a
| detailed review of the AG Review Draft, but held back out of a sense
| of tact.

This vendor is not Ontopia. It may be some other vendor, but if so I
know nothing whatever of it.

--Lars M.



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

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep
in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered
high school alumni--chances are you'll find your friends!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/03IJGA/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/