Jack,
Jack Park wrote:
Patrick,
They may be distinct, but that doesn't mean you cannot have both. It is
possible to build a triple-store database and a set of mappers such that
topic maps can be persisted that way. If the same database is serving
other applications, you avail the opportunity for discovery directly
from the database itself.
Don't think I implied that one could not have both. What I was
responding to was the idea that topic maps were slight modifications of
RDF triples. I think the differences are more profound than that view
implies.
What you suggest in terms of a triple-store database and a set of
mappers is a good illustration of using both. Creating "mappers" between
triple-store databases that use differing ontologies is another.
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
Jack
Patrick Durusau wrote:
Guy,
Apologies for the briefness of this response but I am deep time
wasting admin stuff for the office. Perhaps others will supplement
this response.
Guy.A.Lukes-kgnU/9V7PNs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
To start with, I must say that I am not a topic map expert.
But in my resent attempt (with Bryan Thompson) to implement a topic
map in
a relational database, I was shocked to discover that the underlying
database structure was only a slight modifications of RDF triples.
Can't comment on the simplicity of the relational database design, if
it was posted I missed it, but, do note that topic maps are much more
than "slight modifications of RDF triples."
RDF triples are "complete and unique facts."
Topic maps via assertions (Reference Model), associations (XTM/Data
Model) represent relationships between unambiguous subjects and the
subjects that make up those relationships. (read multiple r-topics,
multiple x-topics, plus a t-topic, in Reference Model terminology)
Both RDF and topic maps have a substantial amount of work devoted to
them and I don't see them as even competing technologies. They use
different underlying conceptions of how to organize information and as
a result work best in particular and often differing domains.
Not trying to start an RDF vs. topic map flame war so note I will not
be responding to any posts of that sort. Sole purpose was to point out
the the two are distinct and nothing more. Which one you choose
depends upon your domain, which is more familiar, etc.
Hope everyone is having a great day!
Patrick
The Subject is the a-node
The predicate is the r-node
The object is the x-node
All that was missing was a c-node to reify the triple
and a set of PSIs to implement subject roles
(predicates/r-nodes/roles) to
support topicmap merging behavior.
This gives you the simplicity of the semantics free RDF triples, with
the
power of topicmap subjects and merging (if you need it), plus the
ability
to leverage all work that is going on in the RDF community.
Is there something I am missing, that is going to cause be problems down
the road?
Guy
_______________________________________________
topicmapmail mailing list
topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
--
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Patrick.Durusau-Axl5Fd8bLORg9hUCZPvPmw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
|
