Re: [topicmaps-comment] back to the lists

[Max Voskob <mvoskob@msi.com.au>]

Sam, thanx for the info

Yes, US IRS is a big one. WOn't argue on that :)

Can u give me other names?
When I present the case to the UDDI TC I will be asked if the standard (XTM)
is widely adopted. I need to have the answer ready.

Don't worry about the schema - I'll do my version of W3C and submit it to
the TC for consideration. At least it will save the others from reinventing
the wheel ;)

Cheers,
Max




----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Hunting" <shunting@etopicality.com>
To: "Max Voskob" <mvoskob@msi.net.nz>
Cc: "Bandholtz, Thomas" <TBandholtz@koeln.sema.slb.com>;
<topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>; <topicmapmail@infoloom.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [topicmaps-comment] back to the lists


> > I noticed some pessimism in terms of adoption.
> > Are there any implementations of XTM by big players?
>
> Does the US Internal Revenue Service count as a big player?
>
> > During the last UDDI meeting we discussed an option of using external
> > representation of taxonomies (it's a UDDI thing) and someone suggested
> > to look into XTM. This is the primary reason for me to contact you and
> > seek your cooperation.
>
> Certainly topic maps can be used for such purposes. I have done a topic
> map that integrates North American Industrial Classifiction System
> (NAICS) and Standard Industrial Code (SIC) taxonomies; Kal Ahmed has done
> done a similar project for UNSPEC.
>
> > Personally, I think that XTM is a good standard, but I wish I had a
> > schema for it! :)
>
> I have the project of a Reealx NG Schema on my plate -- would that help
> you out?
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Max Voskob
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Bandholtz, Thomas
> >   To: topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> >   Cc: 'topicmapmail@infoloom.com'
> >   Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:32 AM
> >   Subject: [topicmaps-comment] back to the lists
> >
> >
> >   "Dear Oasis TM community"
> >
> >   as a silent-for-months member of TC pubsubj and TC geolang, I feel
that I owe you a statement about my (dis-) appearance.
> >
> >   Shortly after XML Europe last May, I had to focus (to earn my living)
on finishing an R&D project "Semantic Network Services (SNS)" and on some
company-internal work on KM and metadata. I followed the TM discussion, at
least kept track of the topics, and sometimes I was making up for a posting,
but - I still was somehow undecided ("mixed feelings", 2002) about some
basic issues, and I did not find a clear position fast enough.
> >
> >   Now, SNS has been completed (at least more or less), and I start to
look over the surface again (...is this German lingo? ...)
> >
> >   Last week I attended the "Open Forum 2003 on Metadata Registries"
(http://metadata-stds.org/OpenForum2003/) in Santa Fe, arranged by ISO/IEC
JTC1 SC32 WG2 (http://metadata-stds.org/). I followed and presented-in the
"Terminology and Ontology" track, and this gave me the final inspiration to
re-enter the discussion.
> >
> >   In (relatively) short:
> >   ++++++++++++ 1. Generally, discussion of TM should be more in the
context of what's happing outside in the world of metadata, ontology, etc.
As I have been confirmed once more in Santa Fe, there are many contiguous
applications for TM fitting into open ends of related standards like ISO
11179, ebXML, UDDI, and Semantic Web - but people don't really know about
us - though most of them are curious about our possible contribution to the
game.
> >
> >   On the other hand, there are several approaches out there that might
be adopted for open issues of our own world, like OWL, or the Extensible
Resource Identifier (XRI).
> >
> >   ++++++++++++ 2. PSI
> >   Every metadata initiative in the world is highly interested in a well
defined terminology for values, which PSI can provide. The most important
thing is that there really need to be unique and persistent URI for any of
the controlled terms. I think it is of less importance, to what these URI
really point. All the variants mentioned in
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/general
.htm must be supported, as they are real.
> >
> >   The most important pre-requisite for PSI to go live are: organizations
that maintain them, in whatsoever form. ISBN work sufficiently (when did you
order a book last time?), as there is a strong and sustainable organization
behind them.
> >
> >   It has been clearly agreed that we will not maintain PSI-sets
ourselves as a service. So, what is our contribution?
> >   To my opinion, machine-readable PSI will play the strategic role in
the future (no problem for a machine to convert e.g. XTM into human-readable
HTML).
> >
> >   There are (at least) two related approaches that we should include
into our considerations, if we don't want to finally find ourselves in a
maverick position ("small boats" are not necessarily faster, Robert :-):
> >
> >   a) The handling of taxonomies in ebXML and UDDI (google for "taxonomy"
and one of the organization acronyms). We must fit into that and find our
"added value".
> >
> >   (I am sure there is ... the concept of Topic Map is a valid template
in the vague world of Ontology ...).
> >   b) OASIS Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) Technical Committee.
http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-01-08-a.html - why aren't we in this boat?
XRI is closely related to PSI, and we should get into this discussion.
> >
> >   Karl Best had a very generic talk at the Open Forum (not yet on-line
today). He did not mention TM at all. But he was presenting a new
cross-organization standards registry initiative (kind of extended xml.org -
his slides will be on-line soon ...), and there was a slide showing
something that looked like a topic map. Why didn't he propose it to be one?
Diplomacy? Or doesn't he take us as a serious option? (see the related OASIS
RFP at http://www.oasis-open.org/documents/registry_rfp.pdf).
> >
> >   ++++++++++++ 3. What interests me most, currently, is OWL
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-guide-20021104/). In my project work over
the last two years I found serious deficits in the XMLization of the topic
map concept.
> >
> >   One simpler thing is that there is no normative XML Schema for topic
maps. If you want to use TM in a context like web services, any of these
today require an XML Schema to be integrated. It's easy to load the XTM DTD
into XMLSpy (or something) and convert it - needs some human cosmetics to
get it to work, but not too much - but that's not normative! There have been
lots of discussions about a TM Schema that I don't want to rehash - would be
enough to make it semantically as equivalent to the DTD as possible -agreed,
and "official".
> >
> >   What's more crucial is the lack of a serialized formal definition of
the typology and constraints of a given topic map instance, such as which
topic types may play which role in which association in this domain (natural
lingo: "A string quartet consists of exactly 4 bowed string musicians:
typically 1st and 2nd violin, viola, and cello"). Something like this was
announced (http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0323.htm) to be
addressed in "ISO 19756: Topic Maps Constraint Language (TMCL)". Public
discussion of further work has finally started one week ago at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tmcl-wg/. Great!
> >
> >   Reading the Web Ontology Language (OWL) development  at
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/, I highly suspect that TM schema
definitions can be completely written in OWL by defining classes like
<tm:topic> as a subclass of <owl:thing>, and so provide the TM concept as an
implemented OWL "library" schema that can be incorporated into any work of
the Web Ontology movement. (May be integrate OWL-Wine and TM-Beer ... who'll
be doing the non-alcoholics ?).
> >
> >   Regards,
> >
> >
>
> Sam Hunting
> eTopicality, Inc.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> "Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm)
>
> Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
> Free open source topic map tools:  www.gooseworks.org
>
> XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
> Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>