[topicmapmail] tagging vs topics

[Tony Coates]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Marius Garshol [mailto:larsga@garshol.priv.no]=20

> What do you mean when you say "point a topic to..." in this=20
> case? Do you mean how to make that particular sentence an=20
> occurrence of the Microsoft topic? Well, you can do that by=20
> using a URL with a fragment
> reference: file://something/something/file.xml#1937529 [1]
>=20
> Then you would have pointed to the <topic> element, but it's=20
> not really all that useful, I think.

I think there is a problem of differing perspectives here.  The existing
topic map cognoscenti have viewed XTM as a transfer syntax for use
between topic map engines.  So, the question of integrating XTM and
document XML never arose, since topic map engines don't store documents.
Indeed, XTM doesn't even allow non-topic-map XML fragments, on the basis
that the topic map paradigm should be used to encode all information and
relationships.  This just won't work for documents, just as it is
awkward (although possible) to store richly marked up documents in a
relational database.

The usual story is that you should use the topic map to point into your
document.  That allow providers of topic map engines to wipe their hands
of the problem, but does little to alleviate the document handling
problems of users.  This advice tells users that if they use topic maps,
they will be forced into multi-file solutions, and that may not be a
palatable story.

It would be useful to compare this with RDF and NewsML.  RDF can
annotate any general XML document, and does not care that there is
non-RDF in the document (well, RDF treats all XML as RDF, but that is
another story).  It certainly allows you to build rich information into
the document file, and have a 1-file solution.  Similarly, NewsML can
have XML content embedded into it, and can relate topic information in
the NewsML structure to content in the embedded XML.  Again, a 1-file
solution is possible.

This is not to say that XTM as is should be changed to allow inclusion
of general XML.  But it does beg the question as to whether there should
be an equivalent embeddable markup that allows XML documents to carry
their own topic map of what is in the document, and what external items
are related to the document, without requiring external files.

	Cheers,
		Tony.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Anthony B. Coates
XML & Search Architect
Chief Technology Office
Reuters Plc, London.
Tony.Coates@reuters.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


-------------------------------------------------------------- --
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.