[topicmapmail] Fragmented XTM for web metadata, and some ontology?

[Murray Altheim]

Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> [Kal Ahmed
> 
>>>So I think that we shoul NOT depricate resourceData.  Instead, we should
>>>strengthen it so it can specify the type of the literal data it holds.
>>>
>>
>>Absolutely. Though I go one step further. I don't want a reinvention of
>>data typing. I just want to be able to include XML from namespaces other
>>than the XTM one inside the resourceData element.
> 
> 
> D'accord. Me too.  However, we need the ability to say whether the contents
> of a resourceData should be interpreted as XML or as literal string values.
> Otherwise an application has to try to guess.  This also comes up when you
> want to include (escaped) HTML in resourceData (there are some reasonable
> use cases for doing this, I think).  Is it text or excaped HTML?  That is
> why I favor using a MIME tag - a facet, perhaps, for Murray.

Tom,

Not necessarily. An occurrence has both an <instanceOf> and a <scope>.
What shows up in each alters the interpretation of the contained
<resourceData> or <resourceRef>, and if there is an available set of
PSIs for datatypes and the ability to reference externally-created
datatypes (a feature of XSD is of course the ability to create one's
own), then absent facets we still can "datatype" a resource. I think
of facets and use of faceted classification as a different thing, i.e.,
as being able to attach a named property to a topic and the incorporation
of a classification scheme based on facets, respectively.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim                         http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK                    .

        "There's a lot of intelligence out there that you don't
         know if it's true or not."  -- Anonymous US official
         http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3014850.stm