Re: [regrep-semantic] USE CASE Action Items

["Carl Mattocks" <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>]

Folks:
Thanks for a dynamic meeting. I provide the list of USE CASE titles (and
one full example) to help us deal with the action items of -
* Suggest modifications to the Template structure e.g. add column
'Scenario Supported'
* Describe scenarios for SCM usage e.g. Tourism Service (such as, SATINE);
e-Gov Services (such as, PS MOD project).

8)Ontology search supporting ontology development

7)Extend information model with user-defined classes
Discover content using semantic queries

6)Associate 2 RegistryObjects using an Ontology Class

5)Classify content using Ontology class

4)Collaborative ontology development

3)eBusiness Industry Dictionary: BP catalogue

2)eBusiness Industry Dictionary: nouns

1)BCM mapping between artifacts to understand conceptual information,
independent of variations in tagging schemas or
the variety of applications in us
<quote who="ewallace@cme.nist.gov">
>
> ID: EKW1 (#8?)
>
> Title
>  Ontology search supporting ontology development
>
> Description
>
> One of the premises of the Semantic Web is that terms will be reused
> rather than reinvented.  RDF, RDFS, and OWL support this through the
> ability to reference resources described outside a document as easily
> as those described within.  They also provide encourage this with
> various constructs for describing equivalence and other relationships
> between terms.  But for reuse to occur, people will also need to be
> able to find the correct terms on which to build.  This will require
> ontology repositories with appropriate search or query capabilities.
> This use case describes how an ontology developer might interact with
> such a repository to discover appropriate terms upon which to build a
> local ontology.
>
>
> Actors
>
>   Ontology developer
>
> Priority (Low, Medium, High)
>
>   High
>
> Pre-conditions
>
>   A repository populated with domain and higher level ontologies
>
> Post-conditions
>
>   None
>
> Basic Flow
>
>   Ontology developer searches repository for ontologies which contain
>   classes specifically mentioned in the domain of identified property
>   restrictions.  Where a set of property terms is specified using a
>   regular expression.  Something like: return all classes where
>   <class> *[m,M]ember <range>. See Examples below for OWL fragments that
>   match this query.
>
>   Repository returns a list of ontologies matching the query, probably
>   presented with some standard metadata for each.
>
>   Ontology developer chooses an ontology from the list and asks to
>   browse that ontology.
>
>   Ontology developer chooses to view the classes in the chosen
>   ontology.
>
>   Repository returns the classes with the ones in the domain requested
>   earlier somehow tagged as such.
>
>   Ontologist requests download of entire ontology for more detailed
>   examination.
>
>   Ontologist refines the terms from downloaded ontology in an
>   organization ontology he creates for his enterprise.
>
>
> Alternative flows
>
>   Alt flow 1: No suitable ontology found
>
>     Ontologist finds no suitable general ontology, so he creates one.
>
>     Ontologist uploads new reusable ontology to repository.
>
>   Alt flow 2: Navigate through specialized ontology
>
>     Query returns terms too specialized for intended use. However,
>     some are subtyped from another term defined in another ontology
>     within the repository.
>
>     Ontologist requests to follow link to ontology in which the
>     supertype is defined.
>
>     Repository selects ontology for browsing and returns list of the
>     metatype (either properties or classes) of terms from the
>     ontology containing the supertype of interest.
>
>
> Exceptions
>
>   Alt flow 1
>     Ontologist does not have permission to upload to the repository.
>
>   Alt flow 2
>     Supertype of interest is not described in the repository.
>
> Includes Use Cases
>
>   None
>
> Special Requirements
>
>   None
>
> Assumptions
>
>   This scenario assumes sufficient (property and class)
>   information grouped in a single file.
>
>   It also assumes that english words will be a useful tool
>   in identifying concepts in ontology repositories.
>
>   Note no subsumption reasoning is used for responses to these
>   queries. This significantly scopes the query results, but could
>   result in filtering the ontology desired.
>
> Use Case Relationships
>
>   None
>
> Issues
>
>   Ontology files in the repository may not have names that help
>   explain their content, and may not even contain an owl:Ontology
>   keyword to help distinguish them from rdf data files.
>
> Examples
>
>   Files containing the following sample rdf/xml would match the
>   example query described in the main flow above:
>
>   (from http://www.mindswap.org/~golbeck/web/www04photo.owl)
>   <owl:Class rdf:ID="Group"/>
>   <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasMember">
>         <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Group"/>
>         <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Person"/>
>         <owl:inverseOf rdf:resource="#memberOf"/>
>   </owl:ObjectProperty>
>
> or
>
>   (from my imagination)
>   <owl:Class rdf:ID="OMGVotingList">
>    <rdfs:subClassOf>
>      <owl:Restriction>
>        <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasMember"/>
>        <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#OMGMember"/>
>      </owl:Restriction>
>    </rdfs:subClassOf>
>   </owl:Class>
>
>


-- 
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