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

Hi Andrew,

[...]
>> RTM is practical:
[...]
>> You cannot interpret xml:lang as a theme (CRTM does, btw ;)).

> Right.  Good to know (shameless plugs aside... ;)

CRTM is really that good. ;) (I omitted the exclamation marks ;))

[...]
> Also good to know.  I knew you'd done some things with DBpedia for
> sure, and there are a few other sources out there that I was
> investigating.  My concerns were around expressiveness and semantic
> mismatches in underlying assumptions between the two, but the more
> practical and pragmatic observations from experience are also invaluable.

Mismatches: Well, at least in TMDM you have to invent role types. In
TMRM a mapping may be more or less straight forward, since you may
create a nearly 1:1 mapping because you may assume that i.e.
"foaf:knows" maps directly to a "proxyA foaf:knows proxyB" assertion.
TMRM provides directed relationships, TMDM doesn't.


>> 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.

> This is about where I was with it.  I've seen stuff about adding
> context through quads to RDF, but for the most part, it kinda seems

Although I meant context-sensitiveness in another sense (what's an
association, what's an occurrence, what's a name (see [1]) I agree. :)

[1]
<http://www.infoloom.com/pipermail/topicmapmail/2010q4/008643.html>

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