Re: [regrep-semantic] Use case document

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

+1 on Evan's suggestion to explore further ..


(a)
I think  the 'industry scenarios' we have noted imply a need  for AO, RO
and BO (e-business Ontologies)

Industry Scenario
1
Auto Industry: TREAD ACT Compliance 
2
Banking Industry: Image-based Check Cashing 
3
Air Transport: Defects Tracking and Maintenance

(b)
We should consider the 'pluses & minuses' on 'inference' mechanisms when
using AO, RO or BO (when seperate and when linked together as Upper &
Lower ontologies)

carl
<quote who="ewallace@cme.nist.gov">
>
> Carl wrote:
>
>
>>Since there has been little debate on the content of the 'Use Case
>>Feedback' document - I hope at our next meeting we can agree to send it
>>out by 21 May.
>
> O.K.  Deadlines are good.
>
>>Hopefully we can also agree that we are equally focused on the use of
>>Application Ontologies as well as Reference Ontologies such as SUMO
>>http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS//Vol-94/ki03rao_menzel.pdf
>
> Several comments on this.  First, it is good that Carl provided the
> URL to this paper, as I mis-interpreted the classes of ontologies denoted
> by the terms: Application Ontology and Reference Ontology on my initial
> reading of Carl's message.  One source of this misinterpretation was the
> use
> of SUMO as an example of a RO.  PSL seems to me a better example.  Note by
> Chris Menzel's description an RO needn't be an upper ontology at all.
>
> Second.  Have we talked that much about the types of semantic content
> we expect to support with the SCM effort?  I can't recall any in-depth
> discussions on this.  We have a few examples, and we have had considerable
> discussion of forms for the content, such as OWL, KIF, Topic Maps and even
> UDEF.  We probably should have more discussion about other characteristics
> of what we expect for Reg/Rep semantic content, before making a decision
> about it.
>
> Finally, again by Menzel's definition, our choice of supported form will
> constrain which of these classes of ontology we could support.  ROs must
> be
> in some highly expressive formalism like FOL (eg KIF) which means if we
> only
> support OWL then we can only support AOs.  Similar thinking is what drove
> some of us to advocate KIF support in SCM, although this certainly has to
> be
> weighed against the cost of that support.  Then there is the question of
> whether OWL + SWRL wouldn't be good enough to support ROs that the
> eBusiness
> community might need.
> -Evan
>


-- 
Carl Mattocks

co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart Compendiums
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi