Re: Current state of the discussion around RDF+OWL & Topic Maps?

Hi Andrew,

More seriously answer:

> Before you run away screaming "oh, no!  Not him again!!"

Yes, I know that feeling very well and I feel with you. ;)

> hoping that someone could point me to the most recent reference
> point in this comparison.

I am not aware of recent efforts. RTM seems to be a complete mapping
but it does not solve all problems. It's just a simple mapping where
you can state that the RDF property X should map to the Topic Maps
construct Y.

RTM is practical: You can map the RDF predicate X to occurrence Y and
state that Z should be treated as topic name A but not more. You
cannot interpret xml:lang as a theme (CRTM does, btw ;)).

I've had the "fun" to map DBpedia (RDF sources) to some extent to
Topic Maps and from this experience I'd say that RTM solves many
problems but does not cover all possible problems (and I don't think
that the current RTM definition promises that all your RDF -> Topic
Maps problems would be solved).

RTM is good, but you need some context and RTM should conditions like
"if X is an xsd:URI treat it as an occurrence, otherwise as a name".
Neither RTM nor CRTM does provide conditions.

An RDF to Topic Maps mapping should be (or must be) context-sensitive.
It's not a bug in Topic Maps but a failure in RDF ... or a feature in
Topic Maps.


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