W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > March 2005

RDFTM comments: Swick

From: Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:26:24 +0100
To: "SWBPD list" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

This posting contains the editors' resolution of comments on the RDFTM
Survey posted by Ralph Swick:

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

* RDFTM-RS001: Accepted with comments
| It is important to consider RDF and OWL together when the combination
| addresses some of the translation issues. Otherwise a reader may be
| misled into thinking that some aspect has not been treated by either
| Topic Maps or SemWeb community when in fact it has. For example, in
| 2.2.1 under 'identity' we find the statement "RDF only allows a single
| identifier". In the specific contexts OWL sameAs and
| inverseFunctionalProperty can permit multiple identifiers. Under
| "Association roles" the parenthetical remark makes the implication
| that OWL is separate whereas I think the full utility of any
| translation will certainly use OWL.

Greater care is being taken to distinguish between issues that were
seen to be a problem before the advent of OWL and the today's

* RDFTM-RS002: Accepted
| The N-ary associations paragraph should cite the WG n-ary relations
| Working Draft.

* RDFTM-RS003: Accepted
| Editorially, I caution against making commitments for future
| deliverables in this document. Language such as "expects to" is better
| than "will" when referring to documents that are not yet published.

* RDFTM-RS004: Rejected
| In the 2.3.2 RDF2TM test case it might be useful to add foaf:homePage
| in order to expose the features of Topic Maps subject identifiers (at
| least, I expect that would do so.)

The test case has been changed in order to represent the same
information content as the TM2RDF test case. The editors feel that it
is important that the example remain simple. It is not intended to
cover every aspect of translations, or even the most important. The
intent is just to give a feel for the flavour of each translation
approach. It is too early to expose the issue of subject identifiers
and inverse functional properties at this stage of the work. However,
it will clearly be a part of the work on the Guidelines.

* RDFTM-RS005: Accepted
| In both 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 it would be useful to denote which portions
| come from the instance data and which would normally be expected to
| come from a shared document, such as the RDF namespace document (for
| the rdfs:label statements in 2.3.2.)

* RDFTM-RS006: Accepted with comments
| In section 3 there are several instances of the phrase "it is not
| clear". It is not clear to me ( ;) ) which of these statements are
| paraphrasing the associated author(s) of the specific proposals --
| i.e. the original author identified some lack of specificity, whether
| the statements are being made by the authors of this survey, or
| whether the statements are being made on behalf of the Working Group
| (in which case the WG might be expected to engage in some more 'deep
| thought' to see if clarity might emerge.)

The lack of clarity is on the part of the author of the proposal in
question. This has been made clear in the text.

* RDFTM-RS007: Accepted with comments
| In 3.2 much of the difficulty of the approach chosen follows from the
| choice of [PMTM4]. Has there been a better model for Topic Maps
| written since that work was published? I wouldn't expect the TF to
| reproduce the work of Lacher and Decker with a different (and
| hopefully more complete) expression of the Topic Maps data model but
| this survey should cite such a model if it does exist.

There is indeed a better model! It is referred to as the TMDM and is
now cited earlier in the Survey.

Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
Chief Strategy Officer, Ontopia
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0)
Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 14:27:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:07 UTC