Re: Supplement: was Re: One quibble re: topicmap

Right, and I think my coworkers actually probably get this -- my new job is
"semantic modeler" at a somewhat obscure semantic technology company --
they just might be skeptical until they can see a working implementation.
Right now one of the things I'm working on is translating some of our
models from RDF/OWL to topic maps, both as an exercise in demonstrating
what Topic Maps can do and as an exercise in learning RDF/OWL.  Speaking of
which, I have a question for y'all related to that, but I'll start a new
thread.


-marijane


On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Patrick Durusau <patrick-Q/[email protected]> wrote:

> Marijane,
>
> Supplement to my prior post:
>
> On 12/08/2011 06:53 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>  Topic maps in a very real sense are about capturing how we would explain
>> something, if someone asked us, so they would understand what we meant. We
>> do it all day long in a variety of contexts. It's the writing it down for
>> something far less capable than we are that gets hard.
>>
>>  The other aspect of topic maps is that other people may (or may not)
> recognize our explanations (read identifications) as being about the same
> subjects as their explanations (read identifications). People do that all
> the time.
>
> With topic maps represented in digital form, the options for such
> recognition are greatly limited, but still possible.
>
> All topic maps make choices about the explanations/identifications they
> can represent.
>
> The history of data representation, aside from topic maps, has been one of
> "...everyone can, will, must use *my* system of
> explanation/identification....**"
>
> There are large ones, like Dublin Core and there are small ones in the
> databases that your accounting department has created for their own use.
>
> But none of them encompass all the subjects that could be identified, not
> to mention that no system can account for all the subjects that have prior
> identifications.
>
> For some purposes, your local accounting department for example, to have
> its own internal identification of subjects. It is cost effective, suits
> the needs at hand and making it capable of mapping to other identifications
> has no value. The larger organization's accounting structure might disagree
> but that would be at their expense.
>
> Hope you are having a great day!
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
> --
>
> Patrick Durusau
> patrick-Q/[email protected]
> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
> Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
> Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
> OASIS Technical Advisory Board (TAB) - member
>
> Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
> Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
> Twitter: patrickDurusau
> ______________________________**_________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
> http://www.infoloom.com/**mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail<http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail>
>

_______________________________________________
topicmapmail mailing list
topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail