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

["H. Holger Rath" <holger.rath@empolis.com>]

Sam Hunting wrote:
> [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.

I doubt TMPM4 can do what RDFS already can and what TMCL will do.
I only repeat myself when saying that a core data model for topic maps
(= TMPM4 is the starting point of the discussion about TM core data 
model inside ISO SC34 WG3) should - must - not contain concept for 
TM schemas. The assoc template concept in TMPM4 is too weak to be 
really useful (see the TMCL requirements document 
http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0226.htm) and extending
a TM data model to fulfill the other reqs as well makes no sense.

More discussions on this should take place in the ISO mailing list.

Cheers,
--Holger

-- 
Dr. H. Holger Rath
- Director Research & Development -

empolis * GmbH
Bertelsmann MOHN Media Group
Havelstr. 9, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany

phone :  +49-172-66-90-427
fax   :  +49-6151-380-488

<mailto:holger.rath@empolis.com>
http://www.empolis.com