In a world where library management systems are sophisticated and modern…<\/p>\n
I was doing some Google searches about SKOS, trying to figure out the exact distinction between skos:ConceptScheme and skos:Collection (it’s much more clear to me now) and I came across this article in XML.com:<\/p>\n
Introducing SKOS<\/a><\/p>\n The article is fine, but it’s not what compelled me to write a blog post. \u00c2\u00a0I was struck by a comment on that page titled What about Topic Maps?<\/a><\/strong>:<\/p>\n However, Topic Maps proved to be more generally useful, so they are often compared and contrasted with RDF itself. The surprising difficulty of making Topic Maps and RDF work together is exactly the “extra level of indirection” mentioned by the author of this article about SKOS.<\/p>\n It is very strange that neither this article, nor the referenced XTech paper, mentions Topic Maps.<\/p>\n What is the relationship between SKOS and Topic Maps? How does this fit in with the work (as reported In Edd Dumbill’s\u00c2\u00a0blog<\/a>)\n
\n\n
\n This new W3C standard obviously has a huge overlap with the very mature ISO standard Topic Maps.Topic Maps were originally conceived for (almost) exactly the same problem space as SKOS, and they are widely used. (For example, all major library cataloging software either supports Topic Maps or soon will.)<\/p>\n
\non interoperability between Topic Maps and RDF\/OWL?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/blockquote>\n