Hello Nadja,
Topic maps do not populate a class model for whatever
the wiki page represents
--- good luck getting agreement on a class
model for anything in WP, will not happen, imho
TM itself has a small
ontology as seen at [[meta:wikitopics]]
--- topic map, topic, type,
name, (name-) variant, association, context, etc
--- note there is no
class, property, datatype, etc because no class model is used to
describe page content
RDF describes class extents; WP has no need for
these descriptions.
Topic maps describe subject indexes; subject indexes
are what WP sorely lacks imho.
>From [[meta:wikitopics]] you can see that
topic map class model is stored in SMW/RDF triples (in subobjects).
That
said, [[wikidata]] is a fully-conforming RDF application - outputs the
topic maps as triples, query triples, etc.
A key point is that others
can download WP topic maps & convert them into class model(s)
appropriate to their application
You're oriented perhaps towards RDF->TM
transforms.... hard to do..... I'm all about TM->RDF.
regards - john
On 14.06.2012 02:21, Nadja Kutz wrote:
> John McClure wrote:
>
>
"Of course, thanks for the pointer. Yes, I'd agree that 19788's ontology
be closely reviewed for inclusion. 19788:2 standardizes the Dublin Core
properties, the same I recommend for [[wikidata]] provenance data, the
same slated for the [[wikidata]] ontology. But more to your point is
that the entire ISO corpus would fit really well if it were viewed as a
topic map whose topics and sub-topics can be referenced from
[[wikidata]] artifacts such as property definitions."
>
> Hello John
>
> Frankly speaking I don't see why one would want to use topic maps.
>
That is RDF triples are after an identification (canonical: elements
with the same URI are identified)
> a labeled graph, here to be called
"the" RDF graph. (I know that some people call the triples themselves
>
"the" RDF graph, but why use a second word (namely graph) for triples?
>
Triples are very trivial highly disconnected graph.).
> If I want to
connect certain nodes of that graph to a topic
> I only need to supply
these nodes with an extra triple which says
> ("this node belongs to
this topic", i.e. something like (node, belongsto,thistopic) ) or
modify
> the canonical identification map and the RDF graph will be a
"topic map" or one has the case that the triples are
> already set out
in "topics" that is for example
> if I have a set of triples with the
same resource URI then upon canonical identification these are
> a kind
of "topic map" (with all "legs" pointing in one direction) or am I
missing out something crucial?
>
> However if you start with topics,
you have no canonical information about the "internal structure" of
> a
topic and in some cases you would need to artificially impose this in
retrospect onto
> the datastructure.
> Like if your topic is "members of
a society" , you have all the members and you would need some internal
structure like a hierarchy
> then you would need to supply each member
with a hierarchy classification
> (i.e. with extra data, which is
usually different for each member). For the RDF case the person who gave
you
> the triples could have made a choice of order which could be given
upon canonical identification. I.e. in principle the
> internal
structure depends on your identification map but there is a canonical
one.
> You can of course mimick a RDF triple with a topic map by
choosing the topic to be the ressource and
> one "leg" of your topic as
a property and the topic which is connected with this "leg" as the
object, but the
> choice of a leg is not canonical if there is more
than one leg. Only if you would make all "legs" of a topic map into
triples you would have something like a canonical assignment. I find
these differences important. But may be I have overseen something or
misunderstood
> about topic maps (I read about this issue what I found
scattered around in the internet so this is not so unprobable).
>
> I
had this kind of discussion with people from deepa mehta
http://www.deepamehta.de/
> because they used topic maps, but sofar
nobody there could convince me about the distinguished advantages of
topic maps.
> But the discussion was sofar rather brief.
> The
discussion was because we discussed to what extend it would be possible
to merge a student project we
> had at HTW Berlin ( a collaboration
platform for visualizing RDF data called Mimirix
>
http://www.daytar.de/art/MIMIRIX/) with deepa mehta, like for example
>
one could use at least the backend, which has already a layout for
access control
> (the deepa mehta people told me that they haven't yet
really attacked the issue
> of access control) or one could use at lease
the carefully designed client.
>
> May be you have other arguments for
topic maps, as said I might have missed out something.
>
> I understand
that there are other issues like the speed of adressability or direct
access issues
> but these are then rather an issue of the serialization
I find.
>
> So I didn't understand why for example the pregiven JSON
structure of an JSONarray
>
http://www.json.org/javadoc/org/json/JSONArray.html
> is not used in
JSON-LD
>
http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#sets-and-lists
> but
thats another topic.
>
> In the context of applications of ISO metadata
you may want to read:
>
http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Examples+of+semantic+web+applications+and+environment
>
_______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing
list
> [email protected]
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
