John McClure wrote:
"Nadja conflated our asking about ISO Topic Maps as a base design standard with incorporating ALL ISO STANDARDS EVER PUBLISHED into the wikidata database"

OK what I have sofar  understood is that the ISO has not (yet) published much semantically structured content, in particular John how do you know that
their publications are topic maps? Because there exists a ISO Topic Map metamodel?
(here another link:
I guess there could also be a ISO RDF metamodel....although this would probably rather be a ISO W3C RDF metamodel :O
that is RDF could be an ISO standard. That is I currently dont see anything which speaks against this or is is it already?

Moreover I am not in favor of topic maps, as explained earlier and as I had understood Wikidata wanted to use RDF and JSON but may
wikidata people have changed their mind in the meantime and in the end one can probably work with these topic maps somewhat similar as one can work with RDF that is I think it may just be quite a bit more messy moreover my impression is that there is more RDF linked data in the cloud
(see e.g. than topic maps ( but I may be wrong.

moreover I didn't say to use ALL ISO STANDARDS EVER PUBLISHED but suggested to use these eventually as a guideline:

this doesnt exclude that one could use in the end all ISO standards ever published, but one could do so incrementally.

so regarding Denny Vrandecics remark:

"Right now I am slightly confused about what your question is. Can you
rephrase it and ask again? (The reference to "previous email" and
links to the archive leave me merely more confused)."

I restate the questions of my posting:
with a slightly different wording

Is it planned by the  Wikidata team that someone phones these people in Geneva and asks wether wikidata could at least base its ontology (here I mean in particular the overall classification scheme, like a hammer is a tool a.s.o) on
the ISO Standard
(eventually by purchasing this right)
phone number:
(in that way one would eventually not use their explicit texts and formats but could use at least their
structural outline) ?

side remark: In particular I still don't see that Wikidata may not run into legal issues with the ISO.

or simply: If the ISO has an IP protection on the classification "a hammer is a tool"

and if wikidata uses the same classification (because it is more or less the only one which makes sense)

then wikidata may be doomed, bailiffs will come and carry your nice new chairs out of your office in schoeneberg
and so on....
(correction: the bailiffs would bring someone who carries...)

next questions:

Is there some rich sponsor who could buy their RDF classification (or topic map classification..?) and
make it openly accessible? Whats the ISO opinion on that did someone check?

Mr. Denny Vrandecic If you still don't understand these questions then please tell me exactly what you do not understand like
which sentence, which word etc.