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

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

--- Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no> wrote:
> 
> * Sam Hunting
> | 
> | 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.
> 
> This is a very dangerous thought! Whatever else PMTM4 may be for, it
> is not for interchange. 

We are agreed in this -- I wrote in "specialized *in markup* for
interchange", meaning that interchange was the purpose of the markup.

> | Again, the templating mechanism in TMPM4 can perform this function.
> 
> Like Holger says the templating mechanism in PMTM4 is too weak to
> really be useful for anything other than cause confusion by
> representing a useless alternative to the real solution, TMCL.

Well, Lars, I think I'll decline the invitation to flame. I will note
only that PMTM4 is stable, mature, and has been implemented several
times, whereas TMCL is (in your own words) a "straw man". Sounds like
apples and oranges to me. Doubtless there are good ideas all the
approaches that will at some point be reconciled.

> Another thing is that to mix the schema language into the foundations
> of the data model is likely to lead topic maps to come down with a
> very severe case of gordic knot of the bootstraps.

Way too complex for my simple mind, I'm afraid. Again, people have
implemented it, so the presumed issues that you raise have been
resolved somehow, eh?

> | 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.")
> 
> Could you explain what this means? How is topic maps for humans in a
> way that RDF is not, and what practical consequences does this have?

What you you mean by "means" ;-) Give an operational definition? That I
don't think I can do. 

I'm simply reflecting on what seems to be a difference in design
philosophy or focus between RDF and XTM -- RDF schema speaks many times
of "machine-understandable [sic]" vocabularies. 

I suppose that topic maps are a basis for such vocabularies, but the
stress in XTM that (again) "humans are the ultimate arbiters of subject
identity" means that resources that machines might "understand" to be
different in RDF might turn out to be the same in XTM (or vice versa)
once humans were put in the loop. And a good thing too!

As for practical implications, what do you mean by practical? ISO 8879
(SGML) insisted that markup was for humans, and the technology that
came from that design decision led to the founding of an entire
industry. Practical? I suppose so.

S.


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

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