Bernard Vatant, who works for Mondeca, has written "OWL and Topic Map
Pudding." (01)
http://www.mondeca.com/owl/owltm.htm (02)
Cheers
Jack (03)
Peter Yim wrote: (04)
> This looks like a discussion a lot of us will benefit from.
>
> Both Topic Maps and OWL became "front runners" for good reasons. While
> there may be applications where both may be (almost equally) suitable,
> each of these approaches would be better suited for certain applications.
>
> What are those reasons (for their adoption so far)?
>
> What are the applications (best suited to each)?
>
> Where are the areas where they are pitched against one another (as
> well as other approaches)?
>
> Could those of you who are spending time on these issues throw some
> light on the matter, please.
>
> -ppy
>
> P.S. I am separating this into another thread, with a more appropriate
> subject (to ease future retrieval.)
> --
>
> ------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM =>
> CCOWL
> Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 23:27:06 -0700
> From: Michael Daconta <mdaconta@xxxxxxx>
> To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> The subject of Topic maps versus OWL is very important to work I am
> currently doing. I am participating in a group that will be
> standardizing a DOD taxonomy framework and we will need to choose a
> representation format. Clearly, topic maps and OWL are the two front
> runners.
>
> With regard to taxonomies, topic maps seem to have an advantage in
> simplicity, while OWL has the advantage in semantic validity. Also,
> some of the semantic foundations are identical in that Topic maps do
> support class/subclass associations. Unfortunately, the class modeling
> in topic maps is very weak. Thus, one key judgement criteria is
> "how important is robust class modeling to effective classification?"
>
> Topic maps rely mostly on name-based classification (and merging) while
> OWL classes have robust properties, set theoretics and mapping.
> I plan on working through these details to support a recommendation in
> the next few weeks. Comments, suggestions and insights are welcome.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> - Mike
> -----------------------------
> Michael C. Daconta
> Chief Scientist, APG McDonald Bradley, Inc.
> www.daconta.net
>
>
> Jack Park wrote on 1/1/2004, 12:24 PM:
>
> > Peter Yim wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>> Are topic maps out of the running?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Some say you need both Topic Maps and OWL, though I cannot
> > >> understand why. In my mind OWL supersedes Topic Maps..
> > >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 2004 is shaping up quite nicely already!
> > Cheers
> > Jack
> > (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|