Re: [RDFTM] Formalism to describe mapping rules

Lars,

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>* Christopher Welty
>| 
>| Actually, it would make a lot of sense for someone from the TM task
>| force to look at the ODM for topic maps, as my impression is that
>| there has not been a lot of feedback on it.
>
>I gave repeated feedback on the ODM for topic maps to Lewis Hart when
>he was responsible for it, before Bob Colomb took over. Admittedly I
>have not looked at it for a while, but I would claim to be quite
>familiar with it. 
>  
>
Recent changes to the ODM Topic Maps metamodel have primarily been to 
reflect changes
in the ISO document, so it should still look relatively familiar.

What is new and might be useful is the mapping work that Bob has been 
doing between
the RDFS/OWL metamodels in ODM and the TM metamodel, using the recently 
adopted
MOF Query/View/Transformations Relations language.  We have not 
published this yet,
due in part to pending modifications in the RDFS and OWL metamodels, but 
Bob has
done significant work here that might be relevant, at least for 
comparison and coverage
purposes.  It would also assist us in vetting our mapping.

>I don't see how ODM could help RDFTM in what it is trying to do. In my
>opinion we'd be better off just using TMDM and RDF triple notation to
>express our conversion rules than we would be with ODM.
>
>The point of Q is that it is different in nature from all of these
>models (ODM, TMDM, RDF); it's a single model that can represent both
>Topic Maps and RDF.
>  
>
Please let us know if it makes sense to collaborate on this, or if you'd 
like to take a look at
the draft Bob has put together.

Best regards,

Elisa