Topic Maps vs. RDF+DAML+OIL? RDF is inferior? What's RDF's value in the effort to Semantic Web? from Collin on 2002-07-20 (www-rdf-interest@w3.org from November 2002)

From: Collin <collin@seu.edu.cn>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 13:51:00 +0800
To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "Oscar Corcho" <ocorcho@fi.upm.es>, "David Greiff" <david.greiff@imk.fraunhofer.de>, <larsga@ontopia.net>
Message-ID: <003501c22fb1$6d25dcf0$0a0977ca@collin>

HI, rdf world:
    
    Garshol seems to be quite in favor of his Topic Maps in his paper "Topic maps, RDF, DAML, OIL:A comparison" (available at:http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tmrdfoildaml.html). 
    However, after looking into their diagram representations in light of Semantic Network, I found it is indeed that Topic Maps(TM) inherently precedes RDF family(RDF+DAML+OIL) and RDF is, at heart, a relative lower-level knowledge representation language with at least one level lost. 
    
    So what's RDF's value in the effort to Semantic Web? 
    
Collin

Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 00:55:21 UTC