[sc34wg3] Topic Maps land and SAM land

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Uh? If the URIs are the same, RDF considers that the statements are
| referring to the same resource (subject). There's also machinery in
| both DAML+OIL and OWL for working out when different URIs represent
| the same thing, and even for working out when they must represent
| different things. So the situation compared to topic maps is that
| you have a stronger apparatus for declaring when things are the
| same, and in addition an apparatus for declaring when they can't be.

* Jan Algermissen
| 
| Hmm...one of the basic ideas of the RM is that it enables TM Models
| (RM: Applications) to define whatever rules they need for declaring
| subject equivalence. Why do you think that this is that not stronger
| than what RDF provides?

I confused topic maps and the RM in the above, sorry. SAM has weaker
support than does DAML+OIL/OWL because it has neither capability. RM
does better, because it allows multiple ways to specify merging, but
it does not have a capability to declare that things are different.
So DAML+OIL/OWL is currently stronger than either.
  
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| and a not-quite-so-minor issue with respect to reification, but
| that's really it. In all, the similarities are much greater than the
| differences, which is not the case if you compare RDF/SAM. RDF is
| lower-level than SAM, but pretty much at the same level as RM.
 
* Jan Algermissen
|
| The RM provides a framework for defining TM Models (such as the SAM
| for example) and this is something very different to what RDF is.

Well, "a framework for defining TM Models" is intention. I'm comparing
the two data models (RM/RDF), not how their makers intended them to be
used. The intentions are of course very, if not entirely, different.

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