Re: TMCL: tmcl:see-also vs. rdfs:seeAlso

Hi Kal,

[...]
> I think your first option is the wisest and makes the least
> ontological commitment, but still provides all the information
> necessary for a consumer to make the inferences that suit their
> application.

Yes, this goes pretty much in my direction of thinking.

[...]
> A third option might be to treat rdfs:seeAlso as a statement about
> merging and so convert it to a subject identifier (I say subject
[...]
> the address of the subject itself). This makes more of a commitment
> about what you believe rdfs:seeAlso to mean, but IMO it is closer than
> tmcl:see-also.

In some cases this is a good option, but keeping the rdf:seeAlso as
occurrence is safer for a generic RDF to Topic Maps mapping. But on a
per use case basis it could make sense to treat the IRI as subject
identifier (side note: I map owl:sameAs to subject identifiers which
matches the intention of the RDF source).

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>

<http://www.topicmaps.de/mailinglist/> German Topic Maps mailing list
<http://tinytim.sourceforge.net/> Open Source Topic Maps engine
<http://mappa.semagia.com/> Mappa - Python Topic Maps engine