[sc34wg3] Analysis of TMRM Use Cases
Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:19:59 +0200
Kal Ahmed wrote:
> I think the biggest problem with multiple models will be uncertainty.
It is certainly a problem of the RM draft document's prose that it seems
to constantly fail to 'get its core point accross',...but then...noone
has ever asked a question about it either, so it seems pretty well
Anyhow, what makes you think that the RM is about having multiple models?
Where did you get that from?
The RM is fundamentally about disclosing semantics (or ontologies if you
want). It is about how to standardize the act of disclosing decisions like:
"By an occurrence I mean:...., by latitude and longitude properties I mean:...
I consider the combination of latitue and longitude to be a property that
allows me to check whether two topics surrogate the same subject, etc.)
The RM is about how to write 'disclosures of semantics', which are actually
very similar to RDBMS schemas or RDF schemas. The major difference is that
they are intended to work globally and that they are of much richer semantic
To put this in other words: if I send someone else my topic map and also
the disclosure(s) that define the semantics used in it I will be sure that
*any* topic map engine will process the map with the exact same result.
That's not attractive for users of Topic Maps????
> Why do none of the existing implementations support this new kind of
For the record: I have implemented the RM and I also use it with good
success (and the joy of being able to write down the semantics I use
in a defined way) in client projects.
> Kal Ahmed, Techquila
> Standards-based Information Management
> e: firstname.lastname@example.org
> w: www.techquila.com
> p: +44 7968 529531
> sc34wg3 mailing list
Jan Algermissen http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer http://www.gooseworks.org