- From: Steven R. Newcomb <srn@coolheads.com>
- Date: 31 Mar 2005 13:25:22 -0500
- To: "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <mb@infoloom.com>, <Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org>
"Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> writes: > Interoperability of RDF and TMRM seems definitely out of scope > because (as PFPS would rightly point out) "they are > incomparable". OTOH, relevancy of TMRM to the (Semantic) Web is > certainly to be searched at a much more fundamental level, dealing > with the Web infrastructure : URIs, identification protocols > etc. that is, more in the scope of TAG than SWBP. Interested in further discussion of your point about the TMRM and the "(Semantic) Web." Do you see the Web as being co-extensive with the range of possible subjects? Since we all use the Web daily, it looks fairly flexible to us, but that is not really the same as being able to represent all subjects as seen by any author. As you point out, Bernard, this may not be the right venue for such a discussion. It depends on the scope of the definition of "best practices", I guess. -- Steve Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant Coolheads Consulting Co-editor, Topic Maps International Standard (ISO 13250) Co-drafter, Topic Maps Reference Model srn@coolheads.com http://www.coolheads.com direct: +1 540 951 9773 main: +1 540 951 9774 fax: +1 540 951 9775 208 Highview Drive Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 USA
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 18:25:28 UTC