Re: RDF/Topic Maps: what's an Application? (was: Re:[topicmaps-comment] RE: OASIS vs W3C)

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

* Steven R. Newcomb
| 
| I claim:
| 
| (1) A Topic Maps application can be an application of RDF.  
| 
| (2) An RDF application can be an application of Topic Maps.
| 
| (3) Topic Maps itself can be an application of RDF.
| 
| (4) RDF itself can be an application of Topic Maps.

As these statements stand they are truisms, I'm afraid. That is, both
standards are sufficiently powerful to be able to represent anything,
and so 1-4 (as formulated, if not necessarily as intended) will
necessarily be true.

I think they need to be formulated more carefully to become useful
assertions. I can't really do that, since I'm not sure what you were
trying to say, but I can give an example of what I am thinking.

  (1) Any production system implemented using topic maps can be
  re-implemented using RDF, and still meet the functional requirements
  of end-users.
 
| (2) Exactly what constitutes a comprehensive formal
|     definition of an "application" of Topic Maps?

This is probably something it might be useful to do some work on.
Having documented agreement on what this means might make many
discussions easier, and it might make things clearer to novices.

| I wonder whether we can get consensus in either camp that we should
| work conscientiously to achieve consensus on how to define precisely
| the scope of an application of either paradigm?

I won't venture an opinion as to whether this would achieve anything
or not.

--Lars M.