[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL Ontology/Class in place of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode
Zachary: Acknowledged - if the 'Ontology payload' (OWL or otherwise) is stored in an engine outside of the R/R we should discuss what form of 'external semantic technology' could be supported. I think we have agreed that - wherever it is stored there is a need for a Registry (alone) classification (thus) discovery of semantic content capability... YES ? cheers carl <quote who="Zachary Alexander"> > Carl, > > I completely disagree with premise that RDF and OWL represent > significantly different technologies. I think that RDF and OWL > represent payloads. I think that utilization of an external classifier > and/or inference engine would represent a different technology. I think > that the utilization of an external classifier and/or inference engine > would preserve the spirit of the ebXML version 1.06 requirements. > > I would support defining mechanism that would better facilitate the use > of external "semantic technologies" because that will allow the > application developers the option of determining how best satisfy their > customers. I think that the predisposition toward OWL is extremely > shortsighted. What is the potential that other knowledge representations > may rival OWL in the next two to three year time frame? What is the > potential that OWL may morph to better support rules? My belief is that > the reason for the payload neutrality ebXML version 1.06 requirements is > because of questions like the ones that I just asked. > > Zachary Alexander > The IT Investment Architect > ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325 > http://www.ebTDesign.com | http://www.p2peconomy.com | > http://www.itinvestmentvehicle.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl Mattocks [mailto:carlmattocks@checkmi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:57 PM > To: Zachary Alexander > Cc: 'Registry TC - SCM SC' > Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL > Ontology/Class in place of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode > > Thus you agree with the need for PR2.. > > <quote who="Zachary Alexander"> >> <Farrukh from Charter>"The SCMSC will identify specific Semantic Web >> technologies (e.g. RDF, OWL) that are necessary to support the >> requirements identified for semantic content management." </Farrukh > from >> Charter> I think that RDF and OWL are knowledge representations. I > think >> that knowledge representations are payloads. I would classify >> technologies as things like classifiers, and inference engines. I > think >> of semantic supporting technologies as generic not OWL specific. >> >> >> Zachary Alexander >> The IT Investment Architect >> ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325 >> http://www.ebTDesign.com | http://www.p2peconomy.com | >> http://www.itinvestmentvehicle.com >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:14 PM >> To: Zachary Alexander >> Cc: 'Registry TC - SCM SC' >> Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL >> Ontology/Class in place of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode >> >> Zachary Alexander wrote: >> >>> <Jeff> Is PR2 the appropriate context to ask questions regarding the >>> (a) "type of OWL" and (b) "where the OWL interface lies?" Or are > these >> >>> design questions that I can ask for clarity on later? </Jeff> I don't >>> know what to tell you. The direction of this subcommittee seems to >>> have changed. Originally, it was suppose to address the issues >>> surrounding the query and life cycle management of semantic objects. >>> Now it has become about how best to support OWL Explicitly. When I > see >> >>> terms like explicit, I think that the result will be hardwiring. (a) >>> The discussion have centered on the most popular forms of OWL which >>> appear to be OWL DL. (b) I think that this discussion is suppose to >>> lead to modifications to the ebXML Registry which will eliminate the >>> need for an OWL interface. >>> >> Our charter is posted at: >> >> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-semantic/description >> .php >> >> Part of the charter I quote below: >> >> " >> The SCMSC will identify specific Semantic Web technologies (e.g. RDF, >> OWL) that are necessary to support the requirements identified for >> semantic content management. >> " >> >> I believe PR2 is very much within the spirit of the original charter. >> Please recall that the "P" in "PR" is for "Proposed". >> We are brainstorming on requirements. >> >> Please understand that I do not have any hidden agendas here. >> I do not have an OWL implementation or product I am looking to peddle. > I >> >> am just doing the best I can to keep >> ideas and discussion flowing within the SC. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Farrukh >> >> >>> Zachary Alexander >>> >>> The IT Investment Architect >>> >>> ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325 >>> >>> http://www.ebTDesign.com | http://www.p2peconomy.com | >>> http://www.itinvestmentvehicle.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> *From:* Jeffrey T. Pollock [mailto:jeff.pollock@networkinference.com] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:26 AM >>> *To:* 'Farrukh Najmi'; 'Zachary Alexander' >>> *Cc:* 'Registry TC - SCM SC' >>> *Subject:* RE: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL >>> Ontology/Class in place of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode >>> >>> Farrukh- >>> >>> Is PR2 the appropriate context to ask questions regarding the (a) >>> "type of OWL" and (b) "where the OWL interface lies?" Or are these >>> design questions that I can ask for clarity on later? >>> >>> Specifically: >>> >>> (a) discussion of the tradeoffs and consequences between OWL-F and >> OWL-DL >>> >>> (b) if the regrep gets queried as usual (and returns an OWL ontology >>> as a 'blob') or if there are extensions to allow a reasoner to >>> interface the regrep directly (allowing inferencing against the > regrep >> >>> APIs). >>> >>> Thanks for your guidance and clarification. >>> >>> -Jeff- >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> *From:* Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:47 AM >>> *To:* Zachary Alexander >>> *Cc:* 'Registry TC - SCM SC' >>> *Subject:* Re: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL >>> Ontology/Class in place of ClassificationScheme / >> ClassificationNode >>> >>> Zachary Alexander wrote: >>> >>> Farrukh, >>> >>> I think that this violates ebXML version 1.06 requirements. The >>> ebXML registry should be payload neutral. I think that this > should >>> trigger a change in the charter of this subcommittee. I think the >>> charter should be changed to explicitly state that this >>> subcommittee is dedicated to creating an OWL based ebXML > Registry. >>> >>> I said nothing in the PR2 about how the requirement is met. In no >>> way does the requirement imply hardwiring OWL in ebRIM. >>> Lets focus on teh requirement and not how it is going to be >>> addressed at this stage. >>> >>> Zachary Alexander >>> >>> The IT Investment Architect >>> >>> ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325 >>> >>> http://www.ebTDesign.com | http://www.p2peconomy.com | >>> http://www.itinvestmentvehicle.com >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> *From:* Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 17, 2004 9:04 AM >>> *To:* Registry TC - SCM SC >>> *Subject:* [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL >>> Ontology/Class in place of ClassificationScheme / >> ClassificationNode >>> >>> *PR2. Explicit support for OWL Ontology/Class in place of >>> ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode* >>> >>> Allow use of an OWL Ontology in ebXML Registry wherever we use >>> ClassificationSchemes in Version 3. >>> Allow use of an OWL Class in ebXML Registry wherever we use >>> ClassificationNodes in Version 3. >>> >>> *Motivation: *Enable multiple-inheritance which was not possible >>> in ClassificationScheme. Enable use cases 4,5,6,9 >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Farrukh >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Farrukh >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 > > -- 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]