Topic maps took a different approach to the problem of identifying subjects (than RDF) and so looks at semantic drift differently.
In the original 13250, subject descriptor was defined as:
3.19 subject descriptor – Information which is intended to provide a positive, unambiguous indication of the identity of a subject, and which is the referent of an identity attribute of a topic link.
When 13250 was reformulated to focus on the XTM syntax and the legend known as the Topic Maps Data Model (TMDM), the subject descriptor of old became subject identifiers. (Clause 7, TMDM)
A subject identifier has information that identifies a subject.
The author of a topic uses information that identifies a subject to create a subject identifier. (Which is represented in a topic map by an IRI.)
Anyone can look at the subject identifier to see if they are talking about the same subject.
They are responsible for catching semantic drift if it occurs.
But, there is something missing from RDF and topic maps.
Something that would help with semantic drift, although they would use it differently.
Care to take a guess?
Braaaaaiiiiins ….
Alternatively, just don’t use inferencing.
Comment by Alexander Johannesen — October 12, 2010 @ 11:43 pm
Yes, but whose is the question.
Comment by Patrick Durusau — October 13, 2010 @ 4:00 am