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

Re: comment - RDFTM: Survey of Interoperability Proposals

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:31:24 -0500
To: Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050323183124.GP2814@homer.w3.org>

* Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net> [2005-03-23 19:04+0100]
> RDF and Topic Maps may well belong to different categories (that would be
> in the eye of the categorizer). Nevertheless, the SWBPD has determined
> that there is both a need and a potential for achieving some level of
> interoperability at the data level. That does not mean that either RDF or
> Topic Maps will ever be able to replace the other: In that sense they may
> be "incomparable" It does however mean that there can be some benefit to
> be derived from being able to move data between the two. My personal
> experience tells me that the market certainly thinks so.

I believe it is quite possible that one of the two could replace the
other, in terms of market adoption, tools, use in Web data, etc. Such a 
state of affairs could come about regardless of whether we achieve 
consensus regarding mappings etc., and doesn't even depend on whether 
the facilties of the one can fully express the other's. Whether anyone 
actually _wants_ RDF or Topic Maps to "win" in the marketplace is of
course another matter still; I'm certainly not advocating that this 
_should_ happen, only that it is quite possible. And probably beyond any
of our control. I'm very happy to see both prosper, especially as the
mappings improve. I do agree that there is certainly plenty of value in 
moving data between the two environments, and that neither is going 
away any time soon.

Dan
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 18:31:25 UTC

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