Re: Semantic APIs

Hi Patrick,

> My contribution to where I think WG 3 should be going!

> http://www.durusau.net/publications/Semantic-APIs-Durusau.pdf

  [...]
  The experience with RDF, Linked Data, XTM and other semantic
  technologies
  [...]

It's very, very, very (repeat "very" here) unfortunate that XTM (a
syntax!) is still used as synonym for the technology Topic Maps; even
by TM-followers. Either you should refer to "Topic Maps" or use
"RDF/XML" in your enumeration since "RDF/XML" is the XTM equivalent: A
serialiazation format.

(NB: I gave up to convince people to take care about "Topic Maps" (the
technology vs. "topic maps" (plural of "topic map" which refers to a
particular topic map), but XTM is really a bit prehistoric).

Anyway, to be more constructive: While Factual looks interesting, I
don't understand the purpose of the proposal. Does the Semantic-API do
more than the current LOD/HTTP-REST efforts? Can you explain the
mapping in more detail?

Leaving the lack of clarity aside I wonder if WG3 needs another
project. An alternative might be a WG outside of ISO which works on
such a project. If a project does not gain enough attraction outside
of ISO, it will fail also within ISO.

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