Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> >Topic Maps state > > which sets of resources share a single characteristic. They also has the > > advantage of being able to characterize characteristics (using scopes and > > associations). > > Again the RDF concept which is equivalent to a 'set of resources' is a > collection. Think of RDF as an assembly language for higher level constructs Euge! Bravissimo! This, I think nails it. "RDF is as an assembly language for higher-level constructs". I have never seen RDF as limited to the processing model directly suggested by the M&S spec. I am used to building higher-level constructs on RDF. I've pretty much spent Y2K doing this (as, judging from my observations, you have as well). That's why I think a lot of the RDF vs. XTM fuss seems to be based on incomplete understanding of either technology. > > Both RDF and Topic Maps have the same weakness: They are only as good as > the > > semantics they are based on. Neither provides a standardized mechanism for > > recording the meaning of the characteristic > > > > Such a mechanism for recording the meaning of characteristics is termed > an "ontology". This is one of the primary benefits of RDF, RDF Schemas being > fundamentally a language for creating ontologies. DAML-ONT is an extension > of RDFS. A list of such ontologies is available at: > http://www.daml.org/ontologies/ontologies.html Hmm. I'm not sure I buy this. I see RDF Schemas as no more than an arc constraint mechanism. I don;t think this is quite enough to create an "ontoloty". Of course I know that ontologoes can be built upon RDF, but I think it requires _much_ more specialized processing layered on top of RDF and RDF Schemas. Maybe this doen't contradict what you say... -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@f... +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
|
