[topicmapmail] RDFTM survey comments

Fri, 13 May 2005 15:21:17 -0400

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_02C1_01C557CF.68D36B60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Steve, Fabio, Lars, Nicola, Valentina, et all,

Sorry for late comments, I tried to send this email several times during
past two months, but could not subscribe to the list from my gmail account
(and my new born baby did not let me get bored, so I was not very
insistent). 

(I cc topicmail, just in case. If this message still does not post to SWBP
list, I would appreciate if somebody could forward it)

Anyway, I am very impressed with the thorough analysis of the "prior art",
but confused regarding a few things. Firstly - the selection of papers. For
example, authors reviewed my early research (2001) while the latter approach
(2002 - more interesting from some perspectives, which is why I worked on it
and actually published it) is only quoted [Ogievetsky 02] in the
"references" section but not considered otherwise.

Also I am a bit confused regarding the purpose of this work: Is
interoperability being sought on syntax level, data model level, semantic
level, etc.? Even English and Russian languages (those that I somewhat know)
are not fully interoperable. There are limitless examples when roundtrips
lead to larger and different text when translators try to express idioms of
one language with idioms understandable to speakers of other languages.
Imagine Shakespeare translated by Boris Pasternak to Russian and then by
Walt Whitman back to English. How close will it be to the original? And, if
(surprise, surprise) the roundtrip result is different from original - does
it mean that translators did a poor job? (Also, if translators are trying to
preserve all nuances of the source, - do you expect roundtrip to be more
verbose or less verbose?)

Topic Maps and RDF authoring is a creative work even if one uses some ready
to use generic TM/RDF software that claims to do
anything-one-could-ever-ask-for. (And translation as well - is creative)
Thinking otherwise is similar to the idea of communism in one separate
country.

(By the way, [Ogievetsky 02] represents the least verbose XTM to RDF
translation of all generic translations considered in the survey - IMHO, of
course)

I doubt that even a simpler task of translating a topic map expressed in one
vocabulary to a topic map in another vocabulary will ever be "perfect" in
the sense that authors of the survey imply. (Same apply to RDF documents
with different ontology/schemas behind). Syntax level merging is fine, data
model level is arguable, semantic - that is where the real problem hides.
PSI may partially mitigate it but only in the part which is most obvious.
Creative authors will violate any fixed set of PSI, unless restricted by
totalitarian rules). 

Having said all this, I still think that research in this direction is very
important at least because it helps reveal important issues related to
knowledge sharing and interchange.

Hope that everybody is doing well.

Best Regards,

--Nikita

917-406-8734

------=_NextPart_000_02C1_01C557CF.68D36B60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
	font-family:Arial;
	color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Dear Steve, Fabio, Lars, Nicola, Valentina, et =
all,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

Sorry for late comments, I tried to send this email =
several
times during past two months, but could not subscribe to the list from =
my gmail
account (and my new born baby did not let me get bored, so I was not =
very
insistent). <o:p></o:p>

(I cc topicmail, just in case. If this message still =
does not
post to SWBP list, I would appreciate if somebody could forward =
it)<o:p></o:p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Anyway, I am very impressed with the thorough =
analysis of
the &quot;prior art&quot;, but confused regarding a few things. Firstly =
- the
selection of papers. For example, authors reviewed my early research =
(2001)
while the latter approach (2002 - more interesting from some =
perspectives,
which is why I worked on it and actually published it) is only quoted
[Ogievetsky 02] in the &#8220;references&#8221; section but not =
considered
otherwise.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

Also I am a bit confused regarding the purpose of =
this work:
Is interoperability being sought on syntax level, data model level, =
semantic
level, etc.? Even English and Russian languages (those that I somewhat =
know)
are not fully interoperable. There are limitless examples when =
roundtrips lead
to larger and different text when translators try to express idioms of =
one
language with idioms understandable to speakers of other languages. =
Imagine
Shakespeare translated by Boris Pasternak to Russian and then by Walt =
Whitman back
to English. How close will it be to the original? And, if (surprise, =
surprise)
the roundtrip result is different from original &#8211; does it mean =
that translators
did a poor job? (Also, if translators are trying to preserve all nuances =
of the
source, - do you expect roundtrip to be more verbose or less =
verbose?)<o:p></o:p>

Topic Maps and RDF authoring is a creative work even =
if one
uses some ready to use generic TM/RDF software that claims to do
anything-one-could-ever-ask-for. (And translation as well &#8211; is =
creative) Thinking
otherwise is similar to the idea of communism in one separate =
country.<o:p></o:p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>(By the way, [Ogievetsky 02] represents the least =
verbose XTM
to RDF translation of all generic translations considered in the survey =
- IMHO,
of course)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

I doubt that even a simpler task of translating a =
topic map
expressed in one vocabulary to a topic map in another vocabulary will =
ever be
&quot;perfect&quot; in the sense that authors of the survey imply. (Same =
apply
to RDF documents with different ontology/schemas behind). Syntax level =
merging
is fine, data model level is arguable, semantic - that is where the real
problem hides. PSI may partially mitigate it but only in the part which =
is most
obvious. Creative authors will violate any fixed set of PSI, unless =
restricted
by totalitarian rules). <o:p></o:p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Having said all this, I still think that research in =
this
direction is very important at least because it helps reveal important =
issues
related to knowledge sharing and =
interchange.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Hope that everybody is doing =
well.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>--Nikita<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>917-406-8734<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_02C1_01C557CF.68D36B60--