Re: On the integration of Topic Maps and RDF

Yes, that is what I meant, but how represented and what that
representation means ('how represesented' is syntactic, 'what it means'
is semantic). So the third model is really about what it means; and if
TM is fully modelled in RDF, i.e., RDF is the "third model" and you
preserve the semantics in the mapping from TM to RDF, or the user has
the third model in mind (with the mappings) then there is no semantic
loss. But of course for the machine to do this, you need the third model
represented and interpreted by the machine, as I am sure you understand.

Best,
Leo

Martin Lacher wrote:
> 
> > Ok, then my apologies. It seemed as though there was no common model,
> > that is, a third model: the fusion of two models the user understood. So
> > implicitly the semantic mapping was already done in the user's head.
> >
> > Leo
> 
> Leo,
> 
> There is no need to apologize, I am very thankful about every comment I get.
> The comments showing me how to improve my work are even more welcome.
> Just to make sure I understand you right:
> by third model you mean that the user understands how Topic Maps are
> represented in RDF (our specific representation) ?
> And once the user understood this, she can also write the query we showed to
> query both information sources.
> Our next goal will be to capture more of the semantics of the original model
> in the RDF Schema.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Martin

-- 
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst           The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770     7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379       McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 20:22:43 UTC