RDFTM comments: Newcomb, Durusau, Biezunski

This posting contains the editors' resolution of comments on the RDFTM
Survey posted by Steven Newcomb, and signed by him with Patrick Durusau and
Michel Biezunski:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Mar/0218.html

When discussing specific issues, please use the issue ID as part of
the Subject: line.


* RDFTM-SN001: Rejected
| We're troubled by an inconsistency in the draft "Survey of RDF/Topic
| Maps Interoperability Proposals" [...]
| The trouble we're having with this may only be a matter of our own
| perceptions, but the latter statement seems to us to imply that the
| TMDM is the only thing about Topic Maps that is relevant to the
| question of translation between RDF and Topic Maps.  It even seems to
| imply that the TMDM reflects all there is to know about Topic Maps
| that might be relevant to the relationship between RDF and Topic Maps.
| Neither of those implications is correct.

We believe that the current document correctly positions itself wrt Topic
Maps, despite making only cursory references to TMRM. We explicitly state in
section 1.2 (see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/RDFTM/survey) that
the document "consists of a summary and analysis of the major existing
proposals for achieving data interoperability between RDF and Topic Maps."
As such we are interested in only those concepts that in these proposals
have been used for achieving data interoperability. We have not found
references to TMRM in any of the interoperability proposals considered in
the Survey. Two of them are on the other hand based on PMTM4, which can
be considered an early version of the TMRM. This is duly referenced in the
survey.


* RDFTM-SN002: Rejected
| If our conclusion is correct, we hereby suggest that it would be more
| accurate, and less confusing, to describe the scope of the work
| in terms of the TMDM, rather than in terms of "ISO's [whole] family of
| Topic Maps Standards".

We believe that the scope of the survey must reflect the widest possible
spectrum of Topic Maps standards, inasmuch as they are relevant and
necessary to understand the reported experiences. Explicitly reducing the
scope to TMDM would hide the fact (as it is) that none of the reported
experiences relevantly mention TMRM, and it would make the survey look
incomplete and exceedingly narrow in scope (rather than a simple reflection
of the current state of facts). Therefore, we are rejecting the proposal to
describe the scope of the work in terms of TMDM only.

 
* RDFTM-SN003: Accepted with comments
| On the other hand, we may be drawing an incorrect conclusion from this
| early draft.  If the scope of the work is actually *intended* to
| include the Topic Maps paradigm in general, and therefore ISO's
| *whole* family of Topic Maps standards, we would urge the Working
| Group to consider the idea of comparing explicitly the basic
| differences between RDF and TMs, and of examining each data
| translation proposal in light of such an explicit comparison.  Such a
| comparison might be as valuable to people who have to perform such
| translations as would any set of guidelines presented in the absence
| of an explanation of the grounds on which those guidelines stand.

Although we don't believe it is useful to modify our evaluation of past
proposals (mostly because we believe we have already taken all relevant
parts of the TM standards in consideration), it is and it has always been
the intention of this task force and of this working group to examine the
issue of data interoperability between RDF and TM in the widest scope
possible, including all aspects of both families of standard that we will
find relevant.

Although this does not mean that we will necessarily adopt a top-down
approach in the interoperability guidelines, as you seem to suggest, we are
strongly convinced that all standards in both the RDF and TM domains will be
attentively considered for whatever they might contribute to reach real and
full interoperability at the data level between RDF and TM.


* RDFTM-SN004: Accepted with comments
| The most fundamental existing expression of the Topic Maps is found in
| the draft Topic Maps Reference Model (TMRM), Part 5 of ISO 13250.
| While an obsolete draft of the TMRM is cited in the bibliography (the
| current draft is at http://www.isotopicmaps.org/TMRM/TMRM-latest.html)
| the TMRM is not mentioned anywhere else in the Survey document, and we
| suspect that it has not had much influence on the thinking that
| underlies the various proposals that are listed in it.  It's worth
| noting that the TMRM is the only expression of the Topic Maps paradigm
| at a level which is more fundamental than that of any ontological
| commitments, techniques for subject addressing, etc.

Thank you for the reference to the latest version of the TMRM and for
pointing out that the TMRM is only mentioned in the bibliography. It
turns out that this mention is left over from an earlier draft of the
Survey which contained a mention of TMRM that was later removed. The
reference will be removed from the bibliography of the Survey in the
next version. However, as mentioned above, we intend that the TMRM, along
with all other parts of the Topic Maps and RDF/OWL families of standards,
will receive full consideration in the task force's next deliverable,
the Guidelines.


--

Fabio Vitali                            Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly,
Dept. of Computer Science        Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why?'
Univ. of Bologna  ITALY               Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land,
phone:  +39 051 2094872              Man got to tell himself he understand.
e-mail: fabio@cs.unibo.it                     Kurt Vonnegut, "Cat's cradle"
http://www.cs.unibo.it/people/faculty/fabio/

Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 08:31:34 UTC