- From: Bernard Vatant <b.vatant@wanadoo.fr>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Graham Moore" <gdm@empolis.co.uk>, <topicmapmail@infoloom.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> This paper http://www.topicmaps.com/topicmapsrdf.pdf > Graham Among things that stir my reflection in your paper is particularly this one p.9: RESOURCE <Given identity maps onto the SubjectIndicatorReference it seems appropriate that the RDF resource maps onto the TopicMap Topic entity. While there may be some debate about the nature of resource it seems clear that the intent of these two 'entities' is to be able to talk about 'things'. The identity aspect is the main reason for us to assume this fit. Identity is about creating a space in which you can talk about a thing.> I am quite puzzled by the last sentence, and why this mapping between TM Topic and RDF Resource should be grounded on "identity" considerations. I don't know what you mean exactly by "things" here. Why don't you employ"subjects"? Is it different in your mind? I am amazed how your paper carefully avoids the word "subject" to focus on "identity" ... The bottom question: Do you really consider that RDF Resource and TM Topic are equivalent (or isomorphic) concepts, in the sense that any information captured in an RDF Resource can be captured in an equivalent way by a TM Topic (and the other way round) ? Or do you consider it for the moment as a formal equivalence? I suppose you had live debate about it in Berlin. I hope someone will forward to the list some record of that debate ... may be yourself :) Bernard ------------------------------------------------- bernard.vatant@mondeca.com Mondeca - "Making Sense of Content" www.mondeca.com -------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2001 13:35:22 UTC