Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> 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?

Interoperability isn't just about using the same URL for the same concept.

It's about being able to import each others data for matching (which 
involves having the in-house tools and experience); it's about being 
able to provide mutual support and aid (which involves speaking the same 
language); it's about being part of a community of practise and all that 
that entails.

>> 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.

There is little cost in converting it to a topic map, but by using a 
topic map derived from a shared ontology, rather than the shared 
ontology itself, places barriers to interoperability, builds the burden 
of maintenance we need to carry and places us at at least a further step 
from the heart of the community using that ontology.

Given that there are at least four ontologies I'd like to be using, 
multiply that by four.

Stuart Yeates       New Zealand Electronic Text Centre     Institutional Repository