 |
 |
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 14:33, stuart yeates <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > That's not an entirely useful comparison on topic maps and RDF. If I indented to be useful I'd write something substantial, backed up with stuff other than humour. I'll give that a go the next time. :) > We currently use topic maps, alot, in our infrastructure. If we were > starting again tomorrow, I'd advocate using RDF instead, mainly because of > the much better tool support and take-up. Hmm, not a good thing at all. Could you elaborate, though, as I use it too as part of infrastructure too, and wouldn't touch RDF / SemWeb without a long stick? I'm into application semantics and shared knowledge-bases. What are you guys doing where you feel the support and tools are lacking? And what are the RDF alternatives? Regards, Alex -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------