On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:32, stuart yeates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yes, we mint something very similar (see
> for mine), but none of our interoperability partners do. None of our local
> libraries, none of our local archives and only one of our local museums (by
> virtue of some work we did with them).
> All of them publish and most consume some form RDF.

Hmm, RDF resources are just URIs, so I'm still a bit unsure about what
you mean. Are you talking about the fact that the RDF definitions (and
not the RDF vocabs themselves) aren't encoded in your TM engine?

> Additionally many of the taxonomies we're interested in are available in RDF
> but not topic maps.

Converting them to a Topic Map isn't that hard to do, but I guess
there is *a* cost there.


 Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ --------