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 superseded topic maps.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)
|