W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

Re: Concept Map VS Topic Map.

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:54:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4120BCAA.5080005@comcast.net>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Danny Ayers

> | What also may be of interest in the KM space are Conceptual Graphs
> | (CGs) [3] that are an approach to expressing logical statements in a
> | node & arc form. 
> I think CGs are quite different from CMs, though, and closer to
> TMs/RDF, without quite being the same sort of animal.
>  ...
> I haven't followed this very closely, so I don't know much more than
> that. As the link says, Murray Altheim has worked a lot on this, but I
> don't know that he's published all that much.

I regard topic maps as being essentially equivalent (I usually say 
"isomorphic") to a large subset of CGs.  Aside from some syntactic 
differences and some other minor ones, CG has a defined set of logical 
operations, including NOT and OR, while topic maps do not (yet) have the 
equivalent, and also, concept boxes in CGs (essentialy equivalent to 
topics) can contain entire subgraphs, whereas with topic maps we would 
have to reify a subgraph to get the same effect.  The logical operations 
make it possible to prove theorems with CGs, sometimes much more easily 
than by using predicate logic.


Tom P

Thomas B. Passin
Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
Received on Monday, 16 August 2004 13:53:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:52 UTC