There are two short pieces on the Topic Maps Reference Model (TMRM) that are helpful to read before talking about “implementing” the TMRM. Both are by Robert Barta, one of the co-editors of the TMRM, A 5 min Introduction into TMRM and TMRM Exegesis: Proxies.
The TMRM defines an abstract structure to enable us to talk about proxies, the generic representative for subjects. It does not define:
- Any rules for identifying subjects
- Any rules for comparing identifications of subjects
- Any rules for what happens if proxies represent the same subjects
- Any subjects for that matter
If that seems like a lot to not define, it was and it took a while to get there.
The TMRM does not define any of those things, not because they are not necessary, but doing so would impair the ability of legends (the disclosures of all those things) to create views of information that merge diverse information resources.
Consider a recent call for help with the earthquake in Chile. Data was held by a Google’s people finder service but the request was to convert it into RDF. Then do incremental dumps every hour.
So the data moves from one data silo to another data silo. As Ben Stein would say, “Wow.”
If we could identify the subjects, both structural and as represented, we could merge information about those subjects with information about the same subjects in any data silo, not just one in particular.
How is that for a business case? Pay to identify your subjects once versus paying that cost every time you move from one data silo to another one.
The generality of the TMRM is necessary to support the writing of a legend that identifies the subjects in a more than one system and, more importantly, defines rules for when they are talking about the same subjects. (to be continued)
(BTW, using Robert Barta’s virtual topic map approach, hourly dumps/conversion would be unnecessary, unless there was some other reason for it. That is an approach that I hope continues in the next TMQL draft (see the current TMQL draft).)
[…] left off in Implementing the TMRM (Part 1) by saying that if the TMRM defined proxies for particular subjects, it would lack the generality […]
Pingback by Implementing the TMRM (Part 2) « Another Word For It — March 10, 2010 @ 8:52 pm