Is there a need to augment the RIM with an ebXML Registry Ontology?

<ZA> Is there a need to augment the RIM with an ebXML Registry

Ontology? </ZA>

< Farrukh>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.</Farrukh>

<ZA> I think of an ebXML Registry Ontology as a knowledge-base for capturing the best practices for using and deploying ebXML Registries. I think of an ebXML Registry Ontology/Knowledge-base as a way of capturing the decision making processing of when and how best to utilize ebXML Registries. One of the common complaints that I read about the ebXML family of standards is that it is too complicated too utilize. An ebXML Ontology could separate the complexity of implementation from the complexity of usage. An ebXML Registry knowledge-base could be extended to cover things like, “how best to manage the services of translators using XLIFF and an ebXML Registry?” or “how best to manage transactions in the travel industry using XML vocabularies from the OTA (Open Travel Alliance) and an ebXML Registry?” Once we have a core ontology we can drive adoption based on the ebXML Registry’s ability solve problems by removing the fear factor commonly cited today. </ZA>

Zachary Alexander

The IT Investment Architect

ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325

http://www.ebTDesign.com

http://www.p2pspeaker.com

http://www.p2peconomy.com

regrep message