W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2001

Re: On the integration of Topic Maps and RDF

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:28:05 -0400
To: em@w3.org
Cc: lacher@db.stanford.edu, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010821112805Z.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
One important aspect of such mappings, for me, is whether information
expressed naturally in the source formalism (Topic Maps) and then
translated into the target formalism (RDF) can be naturally integrated with
information expressed naturally in the target formalism.  If this is not
the case, then I claim that there is something wrong with the translation.

I feel that the translation expressed in the paper does not satisfy this
criterion.  Consider the example topic map in the paper, which, among other
things, expresses the fact that petroleum is a natural resource of
Denmark.  It seems to me that the natural way of expressing this in RDF is
to have a resource representing Denmark (D), a resource representing
petroleum (P), and a predicate representing the natural resource
relationship (NR).  Then the fact that Denmark has petroleum as a natural
resource is represented as the statement <D,NR,P>.  The mapping in
the paper uses much more machinery than this natural representation,
including two reified statements.

Suppose some facts about natural resources come from topic maps, and are
represented in this translation to RDF, and other facts about natural
resources come from a natural RDF representation.  How can one query the
RDF to find the union of the facts?  Even if it is possible to write a such
a query is it at all possible to write such a query without knowing that
some of the natural resource facts come from topic maps?

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research

From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Subject: Re: On the integration of Topic Maps and RDF
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:50:48 -0400

> At 06:19 PM 8/10/2001 -0700, Martin Lacher wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >please excuse cross-postings of this.
> >I presented a paper "on the integration of Topic Maps and RDF" at last
> >week's Semantic Web Workshop at Stanford and would like to hear your opinion
> >on our approach to this problem. You can download the paper at
> >http://www.semanticweb.org/SWWS/program/full/paper53.pdf. We provide a way
> >to make Topic Map sources RDF-queriable by exchanging one layer in a layered
> >data model stack. The exchange is essentially a mapping of graph
> >characteristics. The result is an RDF Model, "pretending" to be a Topic Map.
> >
> >Martin
> Hi Martin, Stefan,
> I very much enjoyed reading this paper, as it has continued to support a 
> growing recognition regarding the relationship of RDF and TopicMaps that I 
> believe many are starting to share.  I don't consider this "pretending" at 
> all, but rather an important step in articulating the vocabulary and 
> process defined by the Topic Maps community in terms of a formal data model 
> for the web. And as such (as you show) benefiting from this grounding by 
> effectively leveraging tools and technologies designed for supporting this 
> model.
> It seems to me there could be a couple different interpretations in 
> modeling topic maps in this way.  Have you received any feedback from the 
> Topic Map community on your particular representation?
> Now... where can we get some of that instance data :)
> -- 
> eric miller                              http://www.w3.org/people/em/
> semantic web activity lead               mailto:em@w3.org
> w3c world wide web consortium            tel:1.614.763.1100
> 200 technology square, ne43-350          fax:1.208.330.5213
> cambridge, ma 02139 usa                  
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 11:31:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:37 UTC