ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM => CCOWL

To: jamie.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Farrukh.Najmi@xxxxxxx, jackpark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, MCRAWFORD@xxxxxxx, chiusano_joseph@xxxxxxx, dejenz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mccarth4@xxxxxxx, jon.bosak@xxxxxxx, yunker@xxxxxxxxxx, dconnelly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, peter.yim@xxxxxxxx, ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, regrep-cc-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 12:21:45 -0800
Message-id: <3FF48159.2060503@xxxxxxxx>
Forwarding .. post made to the [ontolog-forum]:    (01)

>> From: Jack Park <jackpark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reply-To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM => 
>> CCOWL
>> Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:24:26 -0800    (02)


>> jamie.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote Wed 12/31/2003 4:55 PM     (03)

>>> Farrukh.Najmi@xxxxxxx wrote 01 Jan 2004 12:27:39 -0500    (04)

>>>>> [jc] Are topic maps out of the running?    (05)

>>>> [fn] Some say you need both Topic Maps and OWL, though I cannot 
>>>> understand why. In my mind OWL supersedes Topic Maps..    (06)


>> Well, I can't let that one go uncommented.  There was an unfortunate 
>> "boxing match" between two Erics, one from topic maps and one from 
>> RDF. It was held as a humorous interlude at Extreme Markup 2000. When 
>> both Erics came on stage, they both sang praises of the other's 
>> "camp". Unfortunately, that's not what the press picked up on. Thus it 
>> was that RDF and XTM became "at odds" with each other.    (07)

>> In the end, no matter what is said and done, OWL, RDF, whatever, and 
>> XTM or HyTM (sgml topic maps, the original ISO 13250 dtd) are 
>> serializations with which you can ship information around and have it 
>> arrive in a decypherable form at the other end of whatever wire is 
>> used. At the same time, each brings to the table some manner of 
>> underlying process model and semantics.  XTM, for instance, makes a 
>> minimalist ontological committment to objects necessary to capture 
>> topics, which are known as "the place you go to find out everything 
>> that is knowable about a particular subject" and a subject is 
>> "anything you can talk about."  The topic maps underlying process 
>> model simply dicates that if two topics are about the same subject, 
>> they must be merged.  AFIK, OWL doesn't require such processing. I 
>> would therefore respectfully submit that, if you happen to need the 
>> organizational power that comes with topic maps, no matter how you 
>> construct them (yup, they have been written in OWL), then you must 
>> give due consideration to the one process requirement that makes topic 
>> maps what they are: you must merge objects which talk about the same 
>> subject. I therefore don't think that anything out there today has 
>> superseded topic maps.    (08)

>> In the end, there are ways to construct ontologies such that they are, 
>> by default, topic maps, and nobody needs to know you did that.    (09)

>> 2004 is shaping up quite nicely already!
>> Cheers
>> Jack    (010)

>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: 
>> mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (011)


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (012)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>