[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [topicmaps-comment] referring to a topic from outside a TM
Holger Rath >> ... "Topic Map Addressing Scheme (TOMAS)" ... could be based on a special URN scheme. ... >> We know that TOMAS is *really* necessary and that it is not a trivial >> thing. But we will address it. Thomas Bandholtz: > I would not think about a special URN scheme first. URNs are only names > (ok, globally uniq names, hopefully). We need an addressing method that can > provide on-line access to the addressed node. Agreed. That's the first step. Then you have to figure what you retrieve when you get that handle and pull it. Another story. > Today most of us use URL with *fragment identifiers* (which is not widely > implemented for XML) and not *queries* (using ? in an URI), so they are tied > to documents. You make an important point there. I think you made it already in other posts, but I really catch it only now :)) As was said once in a debate with Steve N. and others, topic maps people have a tendency to be "text bigots". We boil all down to documents. And for that matter, we are certainly wrong. XTM is a document interchange format, and certainly not fit for query. Ditto for any XML format ... BTW in Mondeca we use Oracle + Graph Manager. XTM is for import-export only, as could be RDF or customized XML. > "global knowledge interchange" will not be implemented by merging files or > using file-based linking methods. > I can only imagine a future for TM when they can be maintained in databases > without needing a physical file representation. Linking and merging should > just be "virtual" by processing the relations dynamically, using web interfaces. Exact. Processing Gigabytes of XTM is crazy. > The PSI activities today are dominated by file-oriented thinking. > I think this is very risky. I think you're right. In present recommendation draft of PubSubj TC http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/psdoc.htm ... there is no explicit reference in Part 5 to any form but "addressable documents" - including XTM, RDF, XHTML. But the notion of having PSI living in databases have been discussed in the TC, and I think we should plough that notion further on, and include it in recommended practices. OTOH look closely to the general recommendation - Part 4 - you will not find anything contradictory with data base PSIs. There has even been progress towards less document-oriented approach, since we've come back to "Subject Indicator" after a passage through "Subject Definition Document". But we have still "Published Subject Documentation Set", and the recommendation is about "Documentation" of Published Subjects. Hmmm ... Bottom line - Thomas, you are bringing interesting insights there. What about joining PubSubj TC - as your Schlumberger colleague Mary Nishikawa? Bernard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC