[topicmapmail] Proceedings of Semantic Technologies for eGov

[AreD.Gulbrandsen]

--Apple-Mail-2-380496367
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	delsp=yes;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed


On tirsdag, sep 23, 2003 rhodgson wrote:
> The proceedings of a recent well-attended conference on Semantic  
> Technologies are available on the web at  
> http://www.topquadrant.com/conferences/tq_proceedings.htm
>
> The "Semantic Technologies for E-Government" Conference was held at  
> the White House Conference Centeron September 8th. This was a very  
> successful event with over 130 attendees. Among many agencies  
> represented were Army, Census Bureau, CIA, DIA, DOE, EPA, GSA, IRS,  
> Navy, NARA, NASA, NSA, NSF, SSA, USDA and US Patent Office. A number  
> of attendees were from non-profit organizations such as Aerospace.org  
> and Mitre. Major goverment contractors were also well represented by  
> the attendees from BBN, CSC, Lockheed Martin and SAIC.
>
> Ralph
>
> Hodgson
> Lead for Semantic Technologies Pilot, CIO Council XML Web Services  
> Working Group
> Executive Partner
> TopQuadrant, Inc.

Just the list of organizations attending this conference on sep 8th  
made me take a closer look at the proceedings. I started reading the  
"Semantic Technology Briefing", and though most of it was interesting  
reading, I am sad to say that I was a bit shocked to read the  
description of the Topic Map Family of standards:
http://www.topquadrant.com/documents/ 
TQ03_Semantic_Technology_Briefing.PDF

> 1.3.2 XML-based Knowledge (Ontology) Modeling Languages
>
> XML is being used to represent hierarchies of data. To go beyond  
> hierarchies and simple taxonomies
> requires different kind of standards. The standards below represent  
> convergence of conceptual
> modeling (AI heritage) and mark up languages (HTML and XML heritage):
>
> ISO/IEC 13250 Topic Maps
>   Topic Maps defines a method of using SGML to represent networks of  
> concepts to be
>   superimposed on content resources (documents of various types),  
> providing a means to
>   represent, navigate, and query the network itself, rather than the  
> full text of a document
>   collection. ISO Topic Maps is an approach for representing topics,  
> their occurrences in
>   documents, and the associations between topics.
>
>   XTM is an XML representation of Topic Maps.
>
>   Standard Status = Released
>
>   There are 3 commercial vendors that offer Topic Maps tools. The  
> Topic Maps standard has
>   been developed in an effort parallel to RDF-based ontology  
> languages. Convergence is not
>   likely, but interoperability is possible. Several approaches for  
> mapping between Topic Maps
>   and RDF have been published. Topic Maps are applicable for building  
> indices over information
>   objects that represent unstructured information. We do not recommend  
> Topic Maps for
>   semantic integration in enterprise systems and across decentralized  
> knowledge spaces.

Following this part was two subsections covering "RDF/S" and "DAML+OIL  
and OWL".

I think the conclusion "We do not recommend Topic Maps for semantic  
integration in enterprise systems and across decentralized knowledge  
spaces" is interesting, as it is exactly the opposite of my own  
conclusion.

Merging is an inherent part of the topic map standard, as is the use of  
Published Subjects. This seems to me to give Topic Maps quite an edge  
over RDF-based technology when trying to achieve semantic integration  
of decentralized and heterogeneous information sources.

It seems to me that there are several misconceptions in this short text:
- Implying that the Topic Map model is hierarchial (tree-based), and  
not a graph-based model
- Mistaking the serialization syntax for the underlying data model
- Comparing different meta-levels of modelling and representation (for  
instance comparing UML, XTM, RDF and OWL)
- The conclusion that there are only 3 vendors that offer Topic Map  
tools

I also find it a bit strange that a technology briefing like this fails  
to consider the family of Topic Map Standards:
http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0323.htm


Best Regards,
Are D. Gulbrandsen
The XML-group,
Center for Information Technology Services
University of Oslo, Norway

--Apple-Mail-2-380496367
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII



On tirsdag, sep 23, 2003 rhodgson wrote:

<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>The proceedings of a
recent well-attended conference on Semantic Technologies are available
on the web at
<underline><color><param>1998,1998,FFFE</param>http://www.topquadrant.com/conferences/tq_proceedings.htm</color></underline>


</smaller></fontfamily>The "Semantic Technologies for E-Government"
Conference was held at the White House Conference Centeron September
8th. This was a very successful event with over 130 attendees. Among
many agencies represented were Army, Census Bureau, CIA, DIA, DOE,
EPA, GSA, IRS, Navy, NARA, NASA, NSA, NSF, SSA, USDA and US Patent
Office. A number of attendees were from non-profit organizations such
as Aerospace.org and Mitre. Major goverment contractors were also well
represented by the attendees from BBN, CSC, Lockheed Martin and SAIC.


<fontfamily><param>Verdana</param>Ralph


<smaller>Hodgson

Lead for Semantic Technologies Pilot, CIO Council XML Web Services
Working Group

Executive Partner

</smaller></fontfamily>TopQuadrant<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>,
Inc.

</smaller></fontfamily></excerpt>

Just the list of organizations attending this conference on sep 8th
made me take a closer look at the proceedings. I started reading the
"Semantic Technology Briefing", and though most of it was interesting
reading, I am sad to say that I was a bit shocked to read the
description of the Topic Map Family of standards:

http://www.topquadrant.com/documents/TQ03_Semantic_Technology_Briefing.PDF


<excerpt>1.3.2 XML-based Knowledge (Ontology) Modeling Languages


XML is being used to represent hierarchies of data. To go beyond
hierarchies and simple taxonomies

requires different kind of standards. The standards below represent
convergence of conceptual

modeling (AI heritage) and mark up languages (HTML and XML heritage):


ISO/IEC 13250 Topic Maps

  Topic Maps defines a method of using SGML to represent networks of
concepts to be

  superimposed on content resources (documents of various types),
providing a means to

  represent, navigate, and query the network itself, rather than the
full text of a document

  collection. ISO Topic Maps is an approach for representing topics,
their occurrences in

  documents, and the associations between topics.


  XTM is an XML representation of Topic Maps.


  Standard Status = Released


  There are 3 commercial vendors that offer Topic Maps tools. The
Topic Maps standard has

  been developed in an effort parallel to RDF-based ontology
languages. Convergence is not

  likely, but interoperability is possible. Several approaches for
mapping between Topic Maps

  and RDF have been published. Topic Maps are applicable for building
indices over information

  objects that represent unstructured information. We do not recommend
Topic Maps for

  semantic integration in enterprise systems and across decentralized
knowledge spaces.

</excerpt>

Following this part was two subsections covering "RDF/S" and "DAML+OIL
and OWL".


I think the conclusion "We do not recommend Topic Maps for semantic
integration in enterprise systems and across decentralized knowledge
spaces" is interesting, as it is exactly the opposite of my own
conclusion.


Merging is an inherent part of the topic map standard, as is the use
of Published Subjects. This seems to me to give Topic Maps quite an
edge over RDF-based technology when trying to achieve semantic
integration of decentralized and heterogeneous information sources.


It seems to me that there are several misconceptions in this short
text:

- Implying that the Topic Map model is hierarchial (tree-based), and
not a graph-based model

- Mistaking the serialization syntax for the underlying data model

- Comparing different meta-levels of modelling and representation (for
instance comparing UML, XTM, RDF and OWL)

- The conclusion that there are only 3 vendors that offer Topic Map
tools


I also find it a bit strange that a technology briefing like this
fails to consider the family of Topic Map Standards:

http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0323.htm



Best Regards,

Are D. Gulbrandsen

The XML-group, 

Center for Information Technology Services

University of Oslo, Norway


--Apple-Mail-2-380496367--