[sc34wg3] Topic map view
Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:25:20 +1000
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 05:40:31PM -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> For those of you who were unable to attend the Montreal reference model
> workshop meeting, be aware that a new term has sprung into being!
> "Topic map view"
> This is more than a theoretical question since it is one thing to do
> data conversion on small (relatively speaking) data sets to build web
> portals, but quite another to ask the New York Times, LexisNexis,
> Boeing, the European Parliment, United Nations, any governmental body
> really, to convert their data sets in order to use topic maps.
Yes, this is not always technical feasible.
> Newcomb suggested the following formulation of topic map view:
> (a representation of a topic map of type X)
I would see this as
- a topic map (internalized, either with all topics and assertions
held in memory or elsewhere, or only virtual by hovering over another
resource like a relational database)
> + (a set of rules for interpreting topic maps of type X)
- an ontology (not only including terms and type relationships,
but also rules, including those _when_ to merge, aka
> = (a topic map view) -- an interpretation in which everything has
> become explicit as a set of subject-centric
> information environments.
I hate it when people point to their own work, but, this sounds so
familiar to me:
> In other words, a "topic map view" is a particular way of seeing some
> particular data as a particular topic map.
That could probably be similar to
> I disagree with Newcomb's #1, but only to the extent that it claims the
> "same subject" can be detected. Perhaps, perhaps not, but what is
> detected is that two or more subject proxies are found to be the "same"
> under the rules for that environment.
That rules would have to be part of the ontology, I'd assume.
> May or may not have the same
> subject, that judgment is beyond the pale of the topic map processor
> and/or the topic maps paradigm.
Maybe not. :-)
> Note that from a "topic map view" standpoint, any instance of what we
> now call topic may syntax, HyTM, XTM, LTM, AsTMa, is subject to being
You mean ...map... ?
> viewed through a "topic map view."
That's the way the Perl software I write is built (probably others as
well): XTM, LTM, etc. are just "resources" with a well-known
syntax/semantics. When synchronized into memory (for further
processing) specialized drivers will parse these text streams
If I like the "raw" structure of the map, then I directly access the
informaion without further ado. If I need special identification of
topic then I filter this according to an ontology which defines this.
In some cases the filtered version can be computed offline, in other
cases the filtering will occur at request time.