[sc34wg3] Individual contribution on the U.S. N.B. position o nthe
progress ion of Topic Map standards
Fri, 02 Apr 2004 09:47:59 +0200
Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Again: the RM enables standardized means to define what a scope, occurrence
> etc. is and also arbitrary extensions of these semantics.
> **THAT** IS ITS PRIMARY INTENTION.
Let me stress one thing here: The RM *enables* standardized means, it
does not *provide* them (syntax etc).
For TMTK (my RM implementation) I made up a syntax for defining semantical
commitments. This is of course experimental (not a *standardized* means)
but it maybe illustrates the whole RM idea a bit better.
My (partial) version of the Standard Application Model (the core set of semantics
such as name, occurrence, etc.) can be found here:
Dublin Core semantics are here:
and (partial) UML2 Deployment semantics are here:
You can also access the directory:
Even if this is far from ready, I think it is a pretty good way to convey
to another party what my semantics are.
Note that this works a lot like RDF namespaces (only that it is richer) and
that the defined properties work directly for RDF. For example, the
ITIL/CMDB semantics define a property WarrantyExpiryDate which can be
used in RDF as:
http://foo.org/somePrinter http://purl.org/tm/ITIL/CMDB/WarrantyExpiryDate "20.10.2005"
 Configuration management for IT service support (actually a fascinating Topic Map
Jan Algermissen http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer http://www.gooseworks.org