OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [regrep] Interest in Ontology Process Control Subcommittee


Zachary,

That is by design.  The BPSS talks about logical documents that then
have transaction instances.

Notice that OASIS CAM provides a very slick way of implementing
this - since the logical document can have a CAM template referenced.

That CAM template can then build or process the actual transaction
instance based on context - and so you could have several
formats supported inside the CAM template and pick as needed.

Similarly within the CPA / ebMS linkage - you can also do this too -
either thru configuration in the ebMS - or using CAM as a payload
service for ebMS (coming in V3.0 of ebMS).

Hope that clarifies this.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zachary Alexander" <zack2003@ebtdesign.com>
To: "'ebXML Regrep (ebXML Regrep)'" <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:34 PM
Subject: RE: [regrep] Interest in Ontology Process Control Subcommittee


> Joe,
>
> Currently, the ebXML Family of standards handle XML content in a payload
> neutral manner. Is that a design decision or is that a best practice?
> Can a design decision or best practice that is codified in either a
> defacto or normative manner be called a standard?
>
> 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: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:11 PM
> To: Zachary Alexander
> Cc: 'ebXML Regrep (ebXML Regrep)'
> Subject: Re: [regrep] Interest in Ontology Process Control Subcommittee
>
> This sounds to me like more "best practices", if anything, than
> "registry standards". The information in your anecdote reminds me
> somewhat of a governance board-type function (citing term "process
> control"), if I am now understanding it correctly.
>
> Joe
>
> Zachary Alexander wrote:
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> > There is a lot of collateral technology required to support
> ontologies.
> > Some of these technologies are in their infant 1.0 stage and others
> are
> > proprietary. All are specific to the ontology community not the
> registry
> > community.
> >
> > I think that the standards should address how to open up the registry
> in
> > a logic system neutral manner without concentrating on how the
> ontology
> > developers will use it. I think that there should be the potential for
> a
> > clear separation of effort between registry developers and ontology
> > developers. Developers should not have to know both disciplines.
> >
> > Anecdote: I spent sometime talking with the Netscape LDAP directory
> > developers back in 1999 and I asked them how their directories were
> > being used. They said that they couldn't tell me definitively.  They
> > said that LDAP developers kept coming up with new ways to use their
> > directories. I see the Ontology Process Control Subcommittee as a
> means
> > of facilitating the same kind of creativity.
> >
> > 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: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:09 PM
> > To: Zachary Alexander
> > Cc: 'ebXML Regrep (ebXML Regrep)'
> > Subject: Re: [regrep] Interest in Ontology Process Control
> Subcommittee
> >
> > Zachary Alexander wrote:
> > >
> > > RegRep Team,
> > >
> > > Is there any interest in starting an Ontology Process Control
> > > Subcommittee? This subcommittee would develop registry standards for
> > > supporting process control ontology engineering.
> >
> > Could you perhaps elaborate as to exactly what such standards would
> > address?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Joe
> >
> > > The effort would
> > > produce an ebXML Registry standard that will be ontology
> > representation
> > > neutral. Description Logics may not provide the most robust means of
> > > specifying processes. OWL DL is based on Description Logics.
> However,
> > > there are a number of logic systems (i.e., Modal Logic, Temporal
> > Logic,
> > > and Paraconsistent Logic). Use of one logic system versus another
> > could
> > > provide competitive advantage.  This subcommittee would have as its
> > > charter the concept of Logic System Neutrality.
> > >
> > > Zachary Alexander
> > > The IT Investment Architect
> > > ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325
> > > http://www.ebTDesign.com | http://www.p2peconomy.com |
> > > http://www.itinvestmentvehicle.com
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
> roster
> > of the OASIS TC), go to
> >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgr
> > oup.php.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> of
> > the OASIS TC), go to
> >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgr
> > oup.php.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgr
> oup.php.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]