Re: [regrep] Draft Resolution: Semantic Content Management Subcommittee

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

zack2003 wrote:

> Farrukh,
>
>  
>
> The draft of the proposed Semantic Content Management Subcommittee is 
> very well written and pretty all inclusive. 
>
Thanks Zach.

> However, I have a couple questions:
>
> ·         Is there a need to augment the RIM with an ebXML Registry 
> Ontology?
>
What did you mean by *AN* ebXML Registry Ontology?

I am assuming that RIM would be extended to allow defining *ANY*) 
arbitrary ontology in a manner similar to the current ability add 
arbitrary ClassificationSchemes. Ontologys would essentially supercede 
ClassificationSchemes as a better way to classify RegistryObjects. I  am 
further assuming that this would be done by adding support in RIM for 
defining OWL ontologys.

> ·         Is there a need to discuss the difference between Object 
> Oriented design methodologies and Ontology Oriented design methodologies?
>
Good question. My past experience and gut feel suggests that Ontology 
Oriented design methodologies tend to build upon OO methodologies.

Can you start a thread to discuss the differences you see. Once we have 
an SC list we will move the thread there.

> ·         Is there a need to discuss ontology tool support?
>
Again this topic could also be a discussion thread. My gut feel is that 
as a standard we have tended to stay away from getting into tools. 
However, if we build on existing standards such as OWL then we should 
have no trouble supporting ontology tools without ever saying anything 
about them specifically in our specs.

> ·         Is there a need to discuss Agent Management Systems (AMS) 
> like FIPA and FIPA implementations like JADE?
>
I do not know much about AMS to offer an opinion. Please feel free to 
start a thread  to discuss this idea and seed it with your knowledge on 
the subject. Thanks.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh