[topicmapmail] Nailing the TM vs. RDF debate

[Peter P. Jones]

On 11 Aug 2003 at 14:06, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

> 
> * Peter P. Jones
> |
> | So what does it boil down to, this debate?
> 
> It's more than just the issue of reification that you addressed in
> your posting (which you are right about, IMHO).
> 
> I tried to address this debate in
>   <URL: http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tmrdf.html >
> 
> As you'll see there's more than just differences in how reification
> and scoping is done.
Thanks Lars, I've already read that paper.
I guess I should've spelt out a few of my assumptions better.
1) I've decided the RDF reification mechanism for statements is a 
total non-starter.
>From the RDF Semantics spec on reification in section 3.2.1:
"Although RDF applications may use reification to refer to triple 
tokens in RDF documents, the connection between the document and its 
reification must be maintained by some means external to RDF. RDF 
syntax provides no means to 'connect' an RDF triple to its 
reification."
2) Without an effective reification mechanism proper scoping of 
assertions just won't work, because there will be no proper group 
boundary (on sets of assertions) within which the action of assigning 
scopes is deemed to apply to the other assertions in a group.
3) TM reification also provides a splendid mechanism of indirection 
between subject addresses and assertions making maintenance that bit 
easier.

So, to summarise, imho RDF is presently lacking, and syntaxes that do 
the above properly (e.g. TMs) will do nicely thank you.

Cheers,
-- 
Peter

> 
> -- 
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
>