[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: RDF/Topic Maps: what's an Application? (was: Re:[topicmaps-comment] RE: OASIS vs W3C)
Tony.Coates@reuters.com writes: > On 27/09/2001 23:37:30 "Steven R. Newcomb" wrote: > > >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. > Clearly there is a Turing Machine equivalence that > applies here at the lowest level, so I can implement > either topic maps or RDF using a suitably large > abacus or a suitably organised barrel of monkeys > (those little plastic ones I remember from my > childhood). I take your point, but I'm wondering whether you missed my point. I was not trying to focus attention on the possibility of implementing RDF using Topic Maps, nor on the possibility of implementing Topic Maps using RDF. I was trying to focus attention on the questions: * What would each of these very specific kinds of Applications look like? * How would we declare each of these Applications formally? * More generally, what provisions do/should RDF and Topic Maps make for the formal declaration of such Applications? > A couple of more interesting questions, > to me at least, are > 1. How much more difficult would it be to implement a > topic map application using an RDF engine rather than > a topic map engine, and what would I gain/lose in the > process? > 2. How much more difficult would it be to implement > an RDF application using a topic map engine rather > than an RDF engine, and what would I gain/lose in the > process? These are great questions, but they can't be answered in the absence of standards for the functions of RDF engines and Topic Map engines. (Or at least in the absence of pre-selected RDF and Topic Map technologies to be directly compared with each other.) We must first establish conceptual foundations on which such standards could conceivably be built, to which implementations could actually adhere. Then we'll be in a position to establish the required functionalities of RDF engines and of Topic Map engines. Then, when all that work has been done, we'll be able to answer your very interesting questions. We have to solve these problems in their natural order, or we will waste a great deal of time and effort, and, having wasted all that effort, we will *still* have to solve these problems in their natural order. Personally, I believe that the very next question that must be answered by the Topic Maps community is: "What constitutes an Application of the Topic Maps paradigm, and how should we declare such Applications formally?" I believe that an Application of the Topic Maps paradigm minimally consists of a set of association templates (in other words, a set of assertion types). * For example, if we were implementing RDF itself as an Application of the Topic Maps paradigm, we could declare an assertion type that exactly mimics an RDF assertion, with a "subject" role, an "object" role, and a "predicate" role. RDF in a nutshell. * Alternatively, if we were implementing a *specific RDF Application* as a Topic Maps Application, we would probably take a different approach, in which each of the types of RDF statements used in the RDF Application would become a distinct assertion type in the Topic Maps Application. We would declare many assertion types, each corresponding to a specific type of RDF statement. These two approaches are very different, and they offer immensely different advantages and disadvantages, depending on the nature of the information and the usage scenario. I think both approaches are correct and viable. The implications of each approach, for owners and users of RDF information assets and of Topic Maps information assets, are very different. These implications should inform us as we decide how to standardize an answer to the question, "What constitutes an Application of the Topic Maps paradigm, and how should we declare such Applications formally?" Ultimately, the answer to this question will have huge impact on the answers to the questions you propose. I would generalize your questions as follows: "What [Topic Maps | RDF (choose only one)] functionalities should be required of a conforming [Topic Maps | RDF] engine?" "How will conforming [Topic Maps | RDF] engines support *all* [Topic Maps | RDF] Applications?" "How will conforming [Topic Maps | RDF] engines support *specific* [Topic Maps | RDF] Applications?" When the answers to these questions are known, we'll certainly be able to answer your questions about which kinds of engines should be used for which purposes, and about the issues faced by information owners when moving information between the two paradigms. -- Steve Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant srn@coolheads.com voice: +1 972 359 8160 fax: +1 972 359 0270 1527 Northaven Drive Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC