- From: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:03:58 +0300 (EEST)
- To: Edd Dumbill <edd@usefulinc.com>
- cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On 2002-10-24, Edd Dumbill uttered to www-rdf-interest@w3.org: >While topic map technology has always had an excellent showing at this >conference, representation from the RDF world has always been thin. >I'd love to see more proposals from the RDF world for XML Europe 2003, >so here's your chance. Fully agreed, flavored by a little curiosity. Whereas RDF represents a fairly streamlined datamodel, constituting representational elegance, and a strong push toward interoperable ontologies, I would see topic maps as having a complex set of concepts aimed at little more than what vanilla XML can do. That is, topic maps do not incorporate strong semantics, whereas the RDF community embraces a strong push towards making its semantics unambiguous. To me this suggests that topic maps are little more than an extra transfer syntax, while things built on RDF (another transfer syntax/data model) hold a much broader promise. Against this background, it's peculiar at the very least that topic maps would be the technology to prevail in XML Europe. In XML Finland, it seemed that Semantic Web rather took the show. If TM really has been the king of XML-E, it's high time the tide turned. -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2002 16:04:01 UTC