[topicmapmail] Making ontologies : RDF vs TM

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Marcel Ferrante
|
| So, we can see, from the ontology definition of Information Science,
| [...]

Any one such definition is a poor guide, really, since ontology is one
of those wors that have been used to mean many different things, even
within information science.

| that is possible make a ontology with XTM. Also is possible
| construct: indexex, taxonomies, thesaurus, glossaries and semantics
| network.

Absolutely!
 
| And "topic maps are not about the semantic web, but rather about
| seamless knowledge "
| Hum, interesting. So the scope is bigger than web. 

Bigger, and also smaller. Basically, it's up to you what you want the
scope of your seamless knowledge to be. You don't *have* to involve
the web at all, if you don't want to.

| Let's move the focus instead the macro, as web, to the micro, our
| PC.  I read that next version of windows, longhorn, will has a new
| file system, winfs, that will be "Search and Manage Files Based on
| Content" [1] as they said. They want use XML in the file system.
| That's interesting. I don't want thing now what they will do with
| this and web service in the future. But the analogy comes. Knowledge
| in own PC, organizing files and information with XTM ? Who knows...

It could happen. People have certainly tried already.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >