[sc34wg3] And yet another...

[sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org]

Hi Lars Marius,

Lars Marius wrote:
> 
> Hi Holger,
> 
> * Holger Rath
> | 
> | Compact notation, easy to grasp, appealing to RDF people 
> (not *only* 
> | because of the first two statements ;-), it can do more than TMDM 
> | (because TMDM is just one possible application of your FM).
> | 
> | I like it! Good job!
> 
> Thank you! I was worried that the explanation of the model in 
> there might be too terse, so I'm glad to see you got it this 
> quickly. :)

Well, Graham introduced me to quadruples 1.5 years ago when he developed the
Semantic Web Server. So the idea was familiar to me :-)

> It can indeed do more than the TMDM; for example, it can 
> represent RDF directly, with no loss of information. One 
> thing that is lacking is more work on how to represent TMDM, 
> because I believe that if we get that right we can remove the 
> TMDM/RDF distinction almost entirely.

Yep. And you sketched already how to do it: define a vocabulary for the TMDM
properties. Maybe using RDFS and/or OWL.

> | And I also have the impression (without knowing the latest TMRM 
> | version out of heart) that it is close to the TMRM minus the 
> | constraints/templating stuff TMRM has in it (and which is under 
> | discussion if it is necessary).
> 
> I'm not sure this is true. I've always seen the assertion 
> model as being the heart of the TMRM, and this model 
> represents statements in a very different way. They *are* 
> similar in that they focus on statements rather than nodes, however.

That's waht I meant. And the TMRM assertions always reminded me of RDF
statements. And with the 4th element in the tuple you build the bridge for
reification.

I am wondering how the TMRM people will react to your proposal.

--Holger