Re: [regrep-semantic] ebXML Registry Profile for OWL

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:
>Farrukh wrote:
>
>
>>From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile
>  
>> In standardization, a profile consists of an agreed-upon subset and 
>> interpretation of a specification. ...
>>    
>
>This is indeed *one* use of the word "profile" in some standards efforts.
>I was once an OSI person (long ago, but not at all far away), so I am 
>familiar with this use.  
>
>However, your definition
>
>  
>>My definition is that a profile is: "a normative specification that defines 
>>a standard way to extend or restrict a base specification that is the 
>>target of the profile."
>>    
>
>isn't consistent with the OSI use because it allows a profile to
>extend rather than merely subset a spec. I think I see where this comes
>from though: ebRIM has its own extensibility mechanism, and I believe
>you wish to document a particular usage of that (for OWL) in the work you
>have proposed.  Is that correct?
>  
Yes - precisely.

However, please note that there is ample predent for using profiles to 
define standard extensions
of extensible spec. See for example SAML and XACML specs.
 
My experience with several standards is that the term profile is used to 
define both extensions and restrictions.

The idea is that:

1) a good spec is extensible and a profile needs to describe exactly how 
to use the extensions feature
while maintaining interoperability.

2) Even a reasonable spec has a lot of junk that is not desiarble and a 
profile can restrict by saying that certain features MUST NOT be used.,
>  
>>>The other question I have is about the UML that describes the language
>>>supported by the profile (at least such a thing was in the Web Services 
>>>profile provided as an example).  
>>>      
>>What are you refering to here. Can you be more specific please. 
>>
>>    
>>> This is essentially creating a metamodel 
>>> of the target language depicted in UML. 
>>>      
>
>I can be more specific.  Illustration 1:WSDL Information Model from the
>WSDL profile is an example of what I mean.  If a similar model were 
>included in the OWL profile, I would want it to be consistent with the
>metamodel for OWL in chapter 12 of the Ontology Definition Metamodel
>(see http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/05-09-08.pdf).
>  
+1

The UML Model is illustrative not prescriptive and can be anything that 
helps further correct understanding.
It would make perfect sense to be consistent with the metamodel for OWL. 
Note that in case of WSDL there was no such
model available.

Thanks very much for the clarification.
-- 
Regards,
Farrukh


begin:vcard
fn:Farrukh Najmi
n:Najmi;Farrukh
email;internet:farrukh.najmi@sun.com
tel;work:781-442-9017
url:http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/tmp/farrukhRacePointIcon.jpg
version:2.1
end:vcard