I happened across Data 3.0 (a Manifesto for Platform Agnostic Structured Data) Update 1.
Kingsley Idehen says:
- An “Entity” is the “Referent” of an “Identifier.”
- An Identifier SHOULD provide an unambiguous and unchanging (though it MAY be opaque!) “Name” for its Referent.
- A Referent MAY have many Identifiers (Names), but each Identifier MUST have only one Referent. (A Referent MAY be a collective Entity, i.e., a Group or Class.)
Sounds like:
- A proxy represents a subject
- A proxy can have one or more identifiers for a subject
- The identitifiers in a proxy have only one referent, the subject the proxy represents
Not quite a re-invention of topic maps as Kingsley’s proposal misses treating entity representatives, and their components, potentially as entities themselves. That can have identifiers, rules for mapping, etc.
“When you can do that, grasshopper, then you will be a topic map.”
I just don’t get the following:
1. “grasshopper” connotation I do know a bit about “king-fu” (art and movie series)
2. How you can conclude that I have some sectioned off “entities” as subjects of structured descriptions, neither have I in anyway indicated what is or isn’t a “topic”.
As I keep on telling everyone, how about Boolean “AND” what with this preoccupation with “OR”.
Must there always be a fight at hand? Is the quest for clarity such a problem?
Topic Maps and RDF are both senseless battles, and you think I am wrong, where is either today re. broad comprehension, use, or acceptance?
Kingsley
Comment by Kingsley Idehen — April 18, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
I just don’t get the following:
1. “grasshopper” connotation I do know a bit about “Kung-Fu” (art and David Carradine TV series)
2. How you can conclude that I have somehow sectioned out “entities” as subjects of structured descriptions?
3. Have I in anyway indicated what is or isn’t a “topic” let along a “topic map” ?
As I keep on telling everyone, how about Boolean “AND” what with this preoccupation with “OR”.
Must there always be a fight at hand? Is the quest for clarity such a problem?
Topic Maps and RDF are both senseless battles, and if you think I am wrong, where is either today re., broad comprehension, use, or acceptance?
Why is this a “zero sum game” ?
Kingsley
Comment by Kingsley Idehen — April 18, 2010 @ 7:25 pm
1) The “grasshopper” allusion was my lame attempt to be humorous. My mistake.
2) Err, from the fact you don’t mention it? Would that be a clue?
3) Sorry, I was making the comparison to topic maps, not you. Never claimed that you were.
Who is fighting? I realize you are getting a hard time from the Semantic Web types but I was actually encouraged by your post.
If you think of topic maps as being yet another syntax/data model, complete agreement, it is as senseless as RDF.
What I am arguing for is a recognition that all maps are territories that can be mapped. Which I suspect is close to what you are saying for your entity model, assuming I have understood your comments here correctly.
For those who advocate particular ontologies, models (data and otherwise) this is a zero sum game. (It isn’t to me but there are other players.) I have something longer to say about why mapping (in the broad sense, not just topic maps but ontologies, data models, etc.) leads to zero sum games but I will save that for tomorrow. It is a very old tradition. (Not useful but old.)
Comment by Patrick Durusau — April 18, 2010 @ 7:53 pm