[topicmapmail] graphic language for describing TopicMaps

[Thomas B. Passin]

Thomas Schwotzer wrote:

> Are Gulbrandsen wrote:
> 
>> I'm used to conceptual data modelling in ORM (Object Role Modelling) 
>> (also refered to as NIAM), and think in some respects this modelling 
>> technique is closer to the TM model than UML. (For more info on ORM 
>> http://www.orm.net/ is a good source of information)
> 
> I have doubts that RDF visualization can easily be applied to
> Topic Maps. The RDF triples can be visualized as graphs.
> That's straightforward.
> 
> In Topic Maps, associations define relations between an arbitrary
> number of topics. TMs are hypergraphs.

My take on this is that a TM association should not be compared to a 
single RDF triple.  Instead, a TM association is almost exactly like an 
RDF bnode that has a number of triples hanging off it.  Well, it does 
not _have_ to be a bnode (anonymous node), it could have an identifier, 
but typically it wouldn't have one, just like most associations don't 
seem to have universal identifiers.

The only real difference is that in RDF, the bnode is a Resource, just 
like all the other nodes.  However, if we regard an association as a 
specialized variety of topic, the two cases are nearly isomorphic.  And 
why not consider an association to be a specialized variant kind of 
topic?  Then you wouldn't have to create a topic to reify an 
association, it would be its own topic already.

Cheers,

Tom P