 |
 |
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:32, stuart yeates <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Yes, we mint something very similar (see http://authority.nzetc.org/52969/ > 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. Regards, Alex -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps ------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------