Re: [topicmaps-comment] Re: RDF/Topic Maps: late/lazy reification vs.early/preemptive reification

["Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>]

[Steven R. Newcomb]

> [Piotr Kaminski:]
> > Let me explain with the help of an example. [1]  Suppose we wish to
model
> > a network of clubs and the membership of each.  The natural
representation
> > in RDF [2] is to have a number of club and person resources, and attach
> > them appropriately with member-property arcs.  In TM, each club and
person
> > would be a subject, and we'd have one membership association per club,
> > with the club playing the "organization" role, and the people playing
the
> > "member" role (one player per member).
> >
[...]
>   (BTW, I'm experimenting with calling TM associations "assertions"
>   these days when I'm comparing them to RDF "statements", which I'm
>   also experimentally calling "assertions".  Using that jargon, here's
>   an alternative paraphrase of what I just said:
>
>      "...a single TM assertion can have *any* number of distinct
>      roles, from 2 to n.  RDF assertions are limited to two roles.  A
>      single TM assertion that fully reifies the relationship you
>      describe might have a "club" role, a "member" role, and a
>      "sponsor of member" role.  Three roles is no problem for a TM
>      assertion."
>
>   What do you think?)
>

I think that an association looks very much like a conceptual relation in
Conceptual Graphs, and basically anything in a CG is an assertion.  A topic
is (or could be) much like a CG concept.  A CG is contains either a concept
or some number of associations (with their attached concepts). One key
difference is that CG concepts can be recursive - a concept can be defined
by a conceptual (sub)graph.

So yes, I do agree, and I find I frequently talk about "making statements"
and "making assertions" when talking about topic maps.

Cheers,

Tom P