RE: On the integration of Topic Maps and RDF

> I have to agree with Peter on this. I really can't understand the
> alternative. Unless you really do formalize a third representation
> language which attempts to "preserve" the semantics of the mappings
> between your other two languages (say, with a notion of the formal
> properties represented and preserved on each side through those
> "mappings" or morphisms), then you are spinning in air. Semantic
> interoperability or semantic "mapping" requires a commensurate
> language/model. How else can it work? Modeling the semantics of a model
> in the syntax of another model just can't work. You need to preserve the
> semantics of the original model when you translate it into the syntax of
> the other model (or approximate it to a greater or lesser degree of
> possible formalization).

Leo,

Thank you for comments.
We had a much more modest goal: to enable a user to query two information
source the data models of which she understands.

Martin