Re: Comments on "Survey of RDF/Topic Maps"

"Bernard Vatant" <> 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

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