W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Topic Map RDF vocabulary

From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:36:33 -0700
Message-ID: <040901c216e6$500773b0$1101a8c0@VAIOCOGI>
To: "Mikael Nilsson" <mini@nada.kth.se>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Hi Mikhael,

I actually worked on two RDF vocabularies for Topic Maps:
1) RTM, based on TMPM4 processing model [
http://www.cogx.com/xtm2rdf/extreme2001 ]
2) QTM, based on Quantum Topic Maps. [ http://www.cogx.com/kt2002 ]
At http://www.cogx.com/rtm2rdf you can try an online XTM-RDF translator in
both flavors.
Both translations need more work. Your input is very welcome.

And here is a rather complete list of publications on this subject
(sorry if I missed anything, please let me know):

Eric van der Vlist. Representing XML Topic Maps as RDF.
Graham Moore. RDF and Topic Maps: An Exercise in Convergence.
Martin Lacher. On the integration of Topic Maps and RDF.
Lars Marius Garshol. Topic maps, RDF, DAML, OIL. A comparison
Nikita Ogievetsky. Harvesting XML Topic Maps from RDF.

You can also find lots of material on this at <?xmlhack?>, xml.com and
Cover Pages.

There was an excellent issue of MIT "Markup Languages Theory & Practice"
journal; volume 3.3
with a couple of publications on RDF-Topic Maps mapping.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mikael Nilsson" <mini@nada.kth.se>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 4:38 AM
Subject: Topic Map RDF vocabulary

> Hi!
> While on the subject of Topic Maps:
> I'm playing with the idea of refactoring Topic Maps on top of RDF. Most
> Topic Map <-> RDF efforts are concerned mostly with translating between
> them, taking all artefacts of both into account.
> On the other hand, if we insist on using the RDF model (binary
> relationships etc etc), perhaps it would be a good idea to define a
> "pure" RDF vocabulary for the "essence" of Topic Maps.
> If you look at it this way, things look much simpler...
> Topic Maps          RDF
> ~~~~~~~~~~          ~~~
> Associations   ->   No new vocabulary, just use Properties and RDFS
> Topics         ->   No new vocabulary, just use Resources and RDFS etc.
> Occurences     ->   No counterpart in RDF - new vocab needed.
> So, in fact, we would need to model occurences in RDF. This is
> resonable, as the primary invention of Topic Maps really is the digital
> modeling of occurences. It has been stated over and over that they are
> reasonably similar regarding the topic relationships, but occurences has
> to my knowledge not been modeled in RDF.
> Now I wonder: before I write a paper on this, has anyone seen this done?
> What do you think of the idea?
> /Mikael
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 09:37:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:37 UTC