[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] Re: Proposed Charter for OASIS SET TC
William, I think the two are vastly different! Apples and Oranges - both fruit - but there the similarities end. Not sure you saw my message on alignment with current OASIS CAM work and SET? That I believe is instructive - especially the NIEM.gov work and the wantlist concepts around implementing CONTEXT. We should have the version of jCAM updated by Thursday to include the ability to generate wantlists and apply them from any XSD schema - so you can see these ideas working. I've included below the core statement from XDI - which IMHO leads back to the original DOCUMENT-centric work on providing global identifiers to content - sort of uber-wikipedia concept - of interconnected knowledge. What we're talking about is optimizing business exchanges and the semantic alignment of those - so that interoperability is achieved more easily than today. The references out from those exchanges is thus to semantic definitions (typically in a registry such as ebXML registry provides). Thanks, DW <snip> to define a simple, generalized format and protocol for sharing, linking, and synchronizing data over the Internet and other data networks using XRIs (Extensible Resource Identifiers), a URI-compatible scheme for abstract structured identifiers defined by the OASIS XRI Technical Committee. The overall goal of XDI is to enable data from any data source to be addressed and linked into a machine-readable "dataweb" just as content from any content source can be addressed and linked into the human-readable Web today. </snip> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] Re: Proposed Charter for OASIS SET TC From: "Barnhill, William CTR USAF AFMC AFRL/RIGA" <William.Barnhill.ctr@rl.af.mil> Date: Tue, May 13, 2008 12:41 pm To: <oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org> Cc: "Barnhill, William [USA]" <barnhill_william@bah.com> Hi, This looks fascinating, but wouldn't there be a lot of overlap with XRI Data Interchange Technical Committee (XDI TC)? XDI is developing a mechanism that may achieve all of the goals of the charter as I understood it, at first pass. I haven't done a write up of a detailed comparison yet though. I'd like to first provide the XDI charter for reading ( http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xdi/charter.php ) and request one of the SET TC sponsors to let me know how to end-goals are different from XDI? Thanks, Bill Barnhill Booz Allen Hamilton XDI TC Co-Chair, OASIS TAB member ________________________________ From: carl mattocks Sent: Tue 5/13/2008 11:07 AM To: Eckenfels. Bernd Cc: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] Re: Proposed Charter for OASIS SET TC I agree with the statement "SET Process and Semantic Model" would be easily applicable to legacy formants, EDI or Inhouse .. However, I believe a semantic domain scoped by UBL / CCTS is an excellent and pragmatic goal for the first version of a SET. highest regards carl On 5/13/08, Eckenfels. Bernd <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> wrote: Hello, I want to comment on the Scope of the SET TC Charter in regards to the close/strict relationship with Core Components. I think the major semantic modelling work and a framework to describe that is quite independend from the actual data representation. A "SET Process and Semantic Model" would be easyly applicable to legacy formants, EDI or Inhouse. I therefore would propose to add this as a secondaryx goal, or to weaken the focus, to allow the TC to determine if they only want to support CCs or not. ........................................................... For this purpose, first a UBL "Component Ontology" will be developed. In the later phases, this ontology will be expanded to cover other document standards based on CCTS. The Component Ontology serves two major purposes: . Representing the semantics of components: Document customization takes place at the level of individual types and elements; hence, translation needs to be done at the same level. When an automated process compares two versions of a schema, it needs to be able to identify corresponding elements in these schemas. When document elements are represented as classes of a common component ontology, it becomes possible to utilize that ontology for the computation of similarities between elements from different schemas. . Representing the structure of document schemas: Core component based document schemas are complex hierarchies including numerous types and elements any of which might be modified through customization. ........................................................................ ......................................................... Carl Mattocks -- Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC co-Chair (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC Ontolog ONION Cop Leader VP Berkeley Town Underwater Search & Rescue Unit CEO CHECKMi vmail (usa) 908 322 8715 CarlMattocks@checkmi.com http://www.checkmi.com/ CHECKMi:Mate Semantically Savvy Agents --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]