Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
* Murray Altheim
|
| Back in October we had a discussion related to this subject [5350],
| from which I quote a small fragment, which is only slightly
| accurate, the point being that RDF and XTM themselves operate at
| different levels, and that Topic Maps (as an information modeling
| paradigm) operates at an even higher level:
| >
| > model-theoretic: OWL ???
| > | |
| > schema: RDFS RM
| > | |
| > map: | XTM
| > | |
| > graph: RDF |
| > | |
| > syntax: XML XML
If you replace RM with TMCL here you've got it. RM itself is much
closer to what you said about RDF: RM "absent an [application] is just
a graph language, like GXL. It has almost no built-in semantics." It
certainly isn't a schema language.
...every possible opportunity to minimize the importance of the RM it
seems... why not give *that* a rest?
No, I would have to say the model I'm describing does not put the
RM down in the basic graph syntax category. The purpose of the RM
is to describe the underlying model of Topic Maps, which would be
the kind of model described in an RDF application by RDFS. The level
I have labeled "schema" wasn't for schema languages, it was for
schemas. The RM is the schema for Topic Maps, the underlying model.
If this is too confusing, then perhaps the RM should be up there
with OWL, since it is describing the model-theoretic semantics for
Topic Maps. I didn't do that because the semantics of Topic Maps
are deliberately extremely general, whereas OWL is a very specific
application (Description Logics). The Topic Map model is still
general enough to be used as a basis for creating its own model
theoretic semantics for something like OWL, Conceptual Graphs,
Cyc, or any other kind of ontological modeling.
Murray
......................................................................
Murray Altheim http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK .
A Governing Council member, Jalal Talabani, told Iran's official
news agency, IRNA, that Saddam Hussein's detention will bring
stability to Iraq. "With the arrest of Saddam, the source
financing terrorists has been destroyed and terrorist attacks
will come to an end. Now we can establish a durable stability
and security in Iraq," Talabani was quoted as saying.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/14/international0759EST0465.DTL
"Given the location and circumstances of his capture, it makes
it clear that Saddam Hussein was not managing the insurgency,
and that he had very little control or influence. That is
significant and disturbing because it means the insurgents are
not fighting for Saddam, they're fighting against the United
States," -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/14/national1221EST0543.DTL
|
