RE: Concept Map VS Topic Map.

Tom,

Do you happen to have an example of how to prove theoroms using CGs?  I'm thinking primarily about the mechanical (coding) aspects. It it just "path crunching"?

Thanks,
JGL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Thomas B. Passin
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:55 AM
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Concept Map VS Topic Map.
> 
> 
> 
> Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> > * Danny Ayers
> 
> > | What also may be of interest in the KM space are Conceptual Graphs
> > | (CGs) [3] that are an approach to expressing logical 
> statements in a
> > | node & arc form. 
> > 
> > I think CGs are quite different from CMs, though, and closer to
> > TMs/RDF, without quite being the same sort of animal.
> >  ...
> > 
> > I haven't followed this very closely, so I don't know much more than
> > that. As the link says, Murray Altheim has worked a lot on 
> this, but I
> > don't know that he's published all that much.
> 
> I regard topic maps as being essentially equivalent (I usually say 
> "isomorphic") to a large subset of CGs.  Aside from some syntactic 
> differences and some other minor ones, CG has a defined set 
> of logical 
> operations, including NOT and OR, while topic maps do not 
> (yet) have the 
> equivalent, and also, concept boxes in CGs (essentialy equivalent to 
> topics) can contain entire subgraphs, whereas with topic maps 
> we would 
> have to reify a subgraph to get the same effect.  The logical 
> operations 
> make it possible to prove theorems with CGs, sometimes much 
> more easily 
> than by using predicate logic.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tom P
> 
> -- 
> Thomas B. Passin
> Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
> http://www.manning.com/catalog/view.php?book=passin
> 
>

Received on Monday, 16 August 2004 14:04:59 UTC