[topicmapmail] A blog entry...

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Jan Algermissen
| 
| nice answers. Two points to add:
| 
| - Topic Maps are not bound to a heap of underlying architecture/
|   semantics as for example HTML or RDF; it is next to impossible to be
|   as simple as HTML or RDF if there are no assumptions to be made
|   whatsoever.

I don't think this is true. Topic Maps certainly make assumptions,
like the difference between relationships and things, information
resources and all other things, names and other information resources,
etc
 
| - Despite its inherent simplicity.....who thinks RDF is presented in
| a way that its easy to understand???

I think for some people (developers, AI people, logicians), RDF *is*
easy to understand, because it maps quite neatly onto something they
already know. For ordinary human beings it's much too abstract,
however. It's the same as trying to teach them graph theory. It's not
that it's too hard or too complicated; it's just too abstract for them
to ever feel they have a handle on it.

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