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

Re: On the integration of Topic Maps and RDF

From: Leo Obrst <lobrst@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:43:13 -0400
Message-ID: <3B859511.6B2E59BD@mitre.org>
To: lacher@db.stanford.edu
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, em@w3.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, gdm@empolis.co.uk
Ok, then my apologies. It seemed as though there was no common model,
that is, a third model: the fusion of two models the user understood. So
implicitly the semantic mapping was already done in the user's head.

Leo

Martin Lacher wrote:
> 
> > 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

-- 
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst		The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770	7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379       McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 19:44:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:51 GMT