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

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| I'm not sure to what extent RDF actually 'has' RDF Schema. RDF Schema
| is a candidate recommendation, and has been for more than a year. From
| what I hear work on it has been stopped. This is just a rumour,
| though, and if anyone has more information I'd be happy to hear it.

* Thomas B. Passin
| 
| Well, the DAML+OIL folks have been depending on it and building out
| from it.  Recently there has been some discussion of a major
| disconnect (one of those subtleties that the specialists understand
| but isn't immediately obvious to the rest of us) that might make
| that impossible to continue if something isn't changed.  So you
| could say that RDF Schema has some kind of reasonable existence.
| Anyway, it gives a framework for other efforts.

RDF Schema exists for sure, I am just unsure of its formal status. Or,
more precisely, unsure of whether it will have any future formal status.
It would be strange if it were dropped just like that, but then on the
other hand what has happened so far is also strange. I don't mean to
spread FUD, but this does look a little funny. Or maybe I'm just badly
informed. 

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| As for the original question: what RDF and topic maps do better than
| each other, I can only agree that the answer to this is less clear
| than it ought to be. I trying to work this out for myself, but so far
| a major part of the problem has been that I don't know what anyone
| would use RDF for. (I'm not saying it's useless, just that I am not
| very clueful about practical applications of it.)
 
* Thomas B. Passin
|
| Maybe it's like C vs Python...

Could be. I don't know what that means in this particular case, though.

--Lars M.