[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] Does Taxonomy = Semantic Content Management???
Carl, That works for me... Zachary Alexander The IT Investment Architect ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325 http://www.ebTDesign.com | http://www.p2pspeaker.com http://www.p2peconomy.com | http://www.itinvestmentvehicle.com -----Original Message----- From: Carl Mattocks [mailto:carlmattocks@checkmi.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 6:03 PM To: Zachary Alexander Cc: regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] Does Taxonomy = Semantic Content Management??? Zach : The <ontology-query> information could be placed in the 'Basic Flow' and/or 'Alternate Flow' slots of the current template. http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep-semantic/200401/msg00035.htm l cheers carl <quote who="Zachary Alexander"> > <Evan> If we followed this suggestion, I would still prepare for it by > first > defining use-cases, enumerating a set of terms, and maybe writing some > english text for each of those terms. So I think we are headed in the > correct direction in any case. Perhaps we could start a term list in > parallel with the use-cases? What do the chairs think?</Evan> > Team, I agree with all of this. What do you think about adding an > "Ontology Query" section to the use case? The Ontology Query section > would capture the questions that will be answered by the ontology at the > end of the ontology development process. I think that it might also help > insure the completeness of the use case. > > <Example>ID: 7 > > Title > Extend information model with user-defined classes > > Description > Currently ebXML Registry allow clients to extend Registry Information > Model (RIM) only via attribute extension using Slots on existing RIM > classes. > New RIM classes cannot be defined. > > This use case envisions allowing clients to extend Registry Information > Model (RIM) classes be defining new classes that may be sub-classes of > existing RIM classes . > > The result is that verticals and enterprises may specialize ebXML RIM to > meet their domain specific needs.</Example> > > <ontology_Query ID="1">How does a user extend the ebXML RIM to meet > domain needs? </ontology_Query> > <ontology_Query ID="2">Are there multiple options for extending the > ebXML RIM to meet domain needs? </ontology_Query> > <ontology_Query ID="3"> What are the constraints for extending the ebXML > RIM to meet the domain needs? </ontology_Query> > > Zachary Alexander > The IT Investment Architect > ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325 > http://www.ebTDesign.com | http://www.p2pspeaker.com > http://www.p2peconomy.com | http://www.itinvestmentvehicle.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ewallace@cme.nist.gov [mailto:ewallace@cme.nist.gov] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:40 PM > To: regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] Does Taxonomy = Semantic Content > Management??? > > > Zachary Alexander wrote: > >>The real question is should we create an ebXML Registry Ontology to >>explicitly define what we mean by "semantic support." When we say the >>ebXML Registry explicitly supports "semantic content management," what >>does that mean? Does "semantic content management" mean that it > supports >>taxonomies or taxonomies plus semantics or semantics with templates? >>IMHO: one of the requirements for semantic support is all terminology >>must be explicit. I think the term "semantic content management" has be >>defined, agreed upon and used in the same way through out the project. >>I think that we have to do the same with the concept "semantics" and > all >>other major concepts. I think that all concepts have to be defined and >>vetted in the same way to insure the consistency of the work products. > > Ah. Now I see why you have mentioned this meta-ontology a few times. > I think you are suggesting that we should "eat our own dog food" and > maybe > save some time by using KR methods to formally define this group's > terms. > An interesting idea. To do this we would need a language or a tool that > > everyone in the group could use (for defining a Semantic Content > Management > ontology). Is there one? OWL? If OWL, which syntax: N-Triples, > rdf/xml, > other? Even UML Class diagrams might be a viable tool to begin this > process. > > If we followed this suggestion, I would still prepare for it by first > defining use-cases, enumerating a set of terms, and maybe writing some > english text for each of those terms. So I think we are headed in the > correct direction in any case. Perhaps we could start a term list in > parallel with the use-cases? What do the chairs think? > > > -Evan > > > > >>I think that because projects that use the ebXML "semantic content >>management" support with ontologies will have to do the same with their >>services. > > > > > > > -- Carl Mattocks co-Chair OASIS ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC CEO CHECKMi v/f (usa) 908 322 8715 www.CHECKMi.com Semantically Smart Compendiums (AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]