Hi Nadja -

To my knowledge ISO has not published, nor is intending to publish, instances of topic maps representing the content of their numerous publications, using either their (ISO's) standard for Topic Maps (ISO/IEC 13250), or any other ISO or non-ISO standard. Forgive me if I ever gave that impression.

You provided a nice link to unofficial topic map standards, thank you. Here's others: http://www.garshol.priv.no/download/tmlinks.html.

Theoretically W3C is engaged in mapping Topic Maps to an RDF representation, but I've not seen the fruits of that (important!) work.  I hope when such is published all questions about copyrights will be concommitantly resolved. 

Regards - john

On 05.09.2012 03:17, Nadja Kutz wrote:

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? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitopics

(here another link: http://www.topicmaps.org/standards/)

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. http://linkeddata.org/) than topic maps (http://www.topicmaps.org/) 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:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/576

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: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/576

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: http://www.iso.org/iso/copyright.htm

(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.

nad