Re: [topicmaps-comment] back to the lists

["Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>]

Max -

Oak Ridge National Labs is using topic maps along with a classifier and an
inference engine to apply (help with) security classification markings to
classified documents, based on each projects' classification guide.  This is
a very large and complex undertaking and apparently after a few iterations
they found that topic maps worked much better for them than previous schemes
they had tried.

Here is a reference to the system -

http://www.y12.doe.gov/~mxm/open/Papers/Ferret.PDF

Cheers,

Tom P


> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>