[sc34wg3] And yet another...

[Robert Barta]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:48:13AM +0200, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> 
> I've written up and published my proposal for a foundational model for
> topic maps. It's unfortunately incomplete due to time constraints, but
> I've tried to get enough into the document to at least help people
> understand how it works and how it would be used.
> 
> <URL: http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0529.htm >
> 
> Comments welcome, of course.

Lars,

Part II

- What I think that the proposal shows successfully is that you can
  translate any TMDM structure into RDF. Your quadruples are actually
  RDF statements, or, more precisely, implementations thereof.

  All implementations of RDF I have seen use this approach, although
  the notation is maybe different:

    my $subject   = ....
    my $predicate = ....
    my $object    = ....
    my $statement = new RDF::Core::Statement($subject, $predicate, $object);

  $statement is nothing else than the identifier for the whole thing, like
  what you suggest.

  In this context you write

     Finally, the only way to represent associations in this model is
     to turn them into full nodes with each role player connected in
     by a triple of its own.

  Well, this is RDF isn't it?

- The question is now whether the foundation model (FM) is a model for
  topic maps. For me this is the case when all topic maps, say
  instances of TMDM, can be be mapped into the FM (completeness).

  You have not shown all details, but I cannot see a problem here. Actually,
  the RDF people have argued all along that this can be done and that TMs
  can be disregarded because of this.

  The other question is whether all sets of quadruples form valid topic
  maps (soundness). This is less clear to me. Is, for instance, the set

    [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ]
    [ 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

  a map? And if not, why not?

  In this context you write that 

      Since the thinking behind this proposal is that TMDM remain as it is
      and where it is, it is not necessarily a problem for the
      foundational model to not have the constraints in it. The
      constraints will be provided by TMDM, and the foundational model
      will be specified as a transformation from TMDM to the set of tuples.

  If the FM is simply a transformation of TMDM items into quaduple sets,
  then what exactly is the additional benefit, except of showing one
  alternative to implement TMDM instances?

  Should then not FM simply be an addendum to TMDM, or - even better -
  should TMDM not be drastically simplified by using quadruples only?

- The FM would allow to map TMDM instances to quadruples. This is making
  use of the 'vocabulary' we all (almost) love and use: basename, occurrences,
  variants, ....

  What about using another vocabulary? birthdate, shoesize? Is this then
  un-TM-ishly improper? How can I define which are there and in which
  constellation they may appear? (Others would call it 'disclosure'.)

  Would I have to write then a TMDM-rho which - in prose - would define
  all this stuff? Isn't this a bit like going to field number one, given
  all the TMRM discussions we had over the last year?

\rho