W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Topic Map RDF vocabulary

From: Mikael Nilsson <mini@nada.kth.se>
Date: 18 Jun 2002 17:08:36 +0200
To: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <1024412918.454.148.camel@martina>

Thanks so much for the references! 

I know some of these papers pretty well, but many were new to me.
However, I was on a slightly different track. Let me try to clarify.

Assume Topic Maps were to be designed from scratch today, and assume
that the creators found that RDF was a good way to express them. What
would they be like?

I find it reasonable to assume that they would

1. not introduce n-ary relationships
2. not invent roles and role players
3. not invent their own rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOF/rdfs:subPropertyOf
4. not invent a new way of encoding SIs (subject identifiers)
5. not invent their own vocab for names etc (rdfs:label/dc:title)
5. not invent a new way to represent metadata (facets, data etc.)

Let us assume that this is the case. What would remain do at all? I am
suggesting that the essential feature remaining would be the occurence.

Thus, what they would do would be to define an RDF vocabulary for
occurences. As far as I know, noone has suggested that. Or am I wrong?

/Mikael
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 11:09:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT