Comments on: Topic Maps and the Semantic Web

By: Topic Maps Versus The Semantic Web – Don’t the differences between them suggest how they should be used together? « TopicLogic

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:38:45 +0000

[...] http://topicmaps.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/topic-maps-and-the-semantic-web [...]

By: danbri

danbri — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:17:30 +0000

Hi there

As you’re writing in 2008 (although reporting a 2005 discussion, fair enough), I’m suprised you don’t mention W3C SKOS. It’s an RDF-based vocabulary for (roughly) thesaurus-like content. If you’re doing subject-based classification, SKOS deserves some serious attention. We have a lot of thesauri exposed in it now, as well as the Library of Congress subject headings (http://id.loc.gov/authorities/), and experiments from the Dewey and UDC classifications. I suspect mapping between SKOS/RDF and TopicMaps might go more smoothly than from general unconstrained RDF; I’m not sure about vice-versa, ie. that many TopicMaps might be expressable in terms of SKOS structures…

By: Steve Pepper

Steve Pepper — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:17:20 +0000

Michael, I’m sorry I haven’t risen to your challenge yet. I fully intend to (and in the not-too-distant future).

In the meantime I’m a bit intrigued by your use of the word “colloquial”. Can you explain what it means as applied to XML? Google gives me 352 hits, so the phrase clearly has some currency, but “colloquial” as used here surely doesn’t have quite its normal dictionary sense (as applied to a word or phrase) of “used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary”.

By: Steve Pepper

Steve Pepper — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:04:29 +0000

(To Michael, trackback 2, below) Yes, exactly, it was the later Wittgenstein I had in mind — in particular the discussion (in Untersuchungen) of the category “game” and the notion of family resemblances.

The contrast between the Aristotelian view of categories (defined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions) and the view that category membership is based on resemblance to prototypical members seems somehow to be reflected in the contrast between RDF/OWL and Topic Maps (as also between generative and cognitive linguistics).

It’s just a thought, though. I haven’t really thought it through and I’m not yet sure it will lead to any useful insights, but I hope to return to the topic one day.

By: Heimo Hänninen

Heimo Hänninen — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:34:46 +0000

Very clearly put, Steve. My experiences with both RDF and Topic Maps fully support your analysis. Not going to details, but when hand crafting an RDF schema for the Finnish Museum of Photography (at that time there were no robust RDF modeling tools) I learnt that creating an ontology for human users was very laborious. RDF is like a box of small Lego blogs to build a house (say, a place where you can store your toy solders ) compared to Topic Maps which is like a well thought set of wall pieces, doors, windows and the roof components.
(http://www.fortex.fi/references.html – check the RDF schema story, a link to Schema ref doc is there as well…)

I have tested TMs in ontology modeling few times. A larger project in which we successfully implemented TMs for a telecom information portal system convinced me that it is a better choice if your task is to codify knowledge structures that need to be communicated to human users. It was so much simpler to design and to explain to biz people. For larger information ecosystems the subject identity management concept is somewhat imperative. And it is all built-in in Topic Maps.
(http://www.topicmaps.com/tm2008/hanninen.pdf )

The number of TMs engines and the relatively narrow base of TMs developers is the only downside, but I believe the situation will improve when the OKS goes Open Source.

By: Messages in a bottle » Blog Archive » RDF and Wittgenstein

Messages in a bottle » Blog Archive » RDF and Wittgenstein — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:36:03 +0000

[...] that this possibility seems to run counter to Steve Pepper’s remark “RDF/OWL is to Aristotle as Topic Maps is to Wittgenstein.” Perhaps SP has the [...]

By: C M Sperberg-McQueen

C M Sperberg-McQueen — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:02:44 +0000

Thank you, Steve; nice summary.

Next challenge: and how do (or: how should) RDF and Topic Maps relate to colloquial XML? If one has (for example) an encyclopedia of a given subject area, or a library of journal articles, or both, then what information should be in colloquial XML, what information in Topic Maps, what information in RDF? (Sounds like a trick question, I know, but it’s not. I have an idea of the answer, but am not sure of it.)

By: Tobias Redmann

Tobias Redmann — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:07:16 +0000

I totally agree to this statements. Well done. Thanks for the clearance.

Best regards from Berlin.

By: danbri’s foaf stories » Beautiful plumage: Topic Maps Not Dead Yet

danbri’s foaf stories » Beautiful plumage: Topic Maps Not Dead Yet — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:10:22 +0000

[...] the topicmaps planet aggregator, through which I indirectly find Steve Pepper’s blog and an interesting post on how TMs relate to RDF, OWL and the Semantic Web (though I’d have hoped for some mention of [...]