[sc34wg3] Semantic commitments as basis for Topic Map applications interoperability.
Mon, 28 Apr 2003 22:58:51 -0400
Steven R. Newcomb
> How is what you're proposing different from the TMM approach? The TMM
> provides the most essential ingredient for making this possible: a set
> of requirements that expressions of such ontological commitments must
I honestly do not know yet how TMM approach can support concept of semantic
commitments. It is just not obvious from N0393. STM sample and "Draft
Alignment of N0396 with N0393" I think provide more clues that N0393 itself
I personally prefer to discuss (and understand) issues on "conceptual" level
first. Without understanding at this level it is difficult to be productive
at "microscopic" level.
Concept of "semantic commitments" from my perspective provides this
intermediate level which allows analyze (mostly semi-formally) various
"flavors" of Topic Maps and such formalisms as RDF/RDFS.
As an example of discussion at "semantic commitment" level I can repeat
response which I received from Jan about differences in interpretations of
"relationships between subjects in XTM/SAM and RM-TMM".
>> [Dmitry] My
>> suggestion: RM-TMM should define STANDARD way to represent set of topics
>> with kind of enumeration construct. In this case RM-TMM assertion will
>> provide a "good basis" for representing
>> XTM/SAM associations.
>[Jan] That would require to include the notion of setness in the TMM and we
>choose not to do so. We wanted to exclude everything that is not needed at
>the TMM level. Suppose you have a domain that does never use multiple
>players of a single role, then you don;t have the burdon of bothering
How does it sound at "semantic commitment" level?
XTM/SAM and RM-TMM both commit to one-player role relationships between
XTM/SAM has additional commitment to multi-player role relationships between
When I have good understanding of XTM/SAM and RM-TMM (and other models) at
this level I would be ready to dive into "microscopic" world.