Re: [regrep] linkage between schemas, ontologies, taxonomies and data dictionaries,

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

John,

Good questions - the path forward we have engineered in CAM is:

#1 - Structure section
       A Transaction structure - eg OAG BOD, some XML, UBL, et al.

#2 - Conference reference section
        Points to registry, and
        Associates UDEF IDs to each element / attribute in #1
        note: element tag names can be any - UDEF ID
        establishes what the actual field (aka noun) is.

#3 - Registry contains nouns in XML instances - referencable by
        UDEF ID - that contain the semantics of the elements (eg -
        allowed values, format, length, datatype, etc.).

#4 - XML to capture the taxonomy of the noun dictionary - this
        Ron showed diagrams for in the ebXMLForum.com
        article - each of these diagrams can be modelled in
        VisualScript and then XML generated automatically
        from those - right now that XML is looking like OWL
        that the Registry SCM is currently working on
        defining.

DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
To: "ebXML Regrep (ebXML Regrep)" <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>; "john
hardin" <john@sanghainteractive.com>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 12:05 PM
Subject: [regrep] linkage between schemas, ontologies, taxonomies and data
dictionaries,


>   Forwarded as per John Hardin's request
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:32:48 -0500
> From: john hardin <john@sanghainteractive.com>
> To: dnickull@adobe.com, David RR Webber <david@drrw.info>, Dale Moberg
> <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, jturpin@cyclonecommerce.com,
> ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com, golsen@contivo.com, Farrukh.Najmi@sun.com,
> carlmattocks@checkmi.com, ewallace@cme.nist.gov,
> jspeed@cyclonecommerce.com, gshevchik@cyclonecommerce.com,
> rkhanna@cyclonecommerce.com, mattm@adobe.com
> CC: udef.builders@topica.com
>
>
>
> Carl and all on the reg/rep group:
>
> I'm not sure I've got the ability to post to the OASIS group that
> originated this list, Duane, can you post this to the right groups for me,
> and copy me so that I can capture these email address for the groups (then
> get more deeply involved)? THANKS
>
> One of the classic uses that we have planned for in the UDEF groups is the
> "linkage" between schemas, ontologies, taxonomies and data dictionaries,
> what have you. For example, the data element concept
> "purchase.order.document_date" where "purchase.order.document" is the
> object (document) with qualifiers ( of type 'purchase order') and where
> "date" is the property of the document, is represented in the UDEF
> semi-intelligent ID format as d.t.2_8 or "purchase.order.document_date".
>
> So taking this and placing it in the schemas or RDFs etc, as an attribute
> of the data element concept that is used in that format to specify the
> purchase order document date, will provide a linkage between all the docs
> that have that data element concept. And as you are probably well aware,
> every PO has the data element concept of PO Date, but very few, if any of
> the formats call this data element by the same name. So the attribute can
> be resolved to provide the exact semantic meaning of the data element.
> There are two example XML instance docs on the home page of the UDEF web
> site (http://www.udef.org) one is OAGIS and the other is xCBL
> (commerceone). The UDEF IDs are really improperly placed in the actual
> instance docs, only for demonstration purposes. We think that this really
> belongs in the reference doc (ie: schema, RDF, etc).
>
> In my mind, this is very useful information to have in some form or
fashion
> within the reg/rep, due to the fact that the reg/rep holds integration
> artifact info, and this most certainly qualifies as that. I still don't
> have any opinion on how or where it should be stored in the reg/rep... Can
> we perhaps start on some conversations?
>
> thanks
> john
>
> PS - there is an upcoming NIST / OAGi / UDEF Proof of Concept. See
>
http://lists.topica.com/lists/udef.builders/read/message.html?mid=808601884&sort=d&start=142
> I would also like to include CAM assembly paradigms and mechanisms in this
> if we can....
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> john c hardin
> director / founder - sangha interactive
> 877.572.5691 - 313.737.1197 cell
> john@sanghainteractive.com
> http://www.sanghainteractive.com
>
> see these for more info:
> http://www.udef.org
> http://www.topica.com/lists/udef.builders/read/
> http://www.geocities.com/johnchardin/
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] re: Will a Universal Data Element Framework
> [UDEF] Class of Applications fit within the ebXML Semantic Registry ?
>     * From: "Carl Mattocks"
>     * To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
>     * Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:33:50 -0500 (EST)
>
> ----------
>
> This is interesting. I want to now more..
>
> Zach:
>
> Please expand on the notion of 'UDEF semantic identifiers'.
>
> Evan:
>
> Please elaborate on 'lattices of these relationships '.
>
> Everyone :
>
> Please consider if the Semantic Web could leverage "concepts ... denoted
> by the paths from these nodes to the root rather than the node itself"
>
>
> thanks much
> carl
>
>
>  > Zachary Alexander wrote:
>  >
>  >>Will a UDEF (Universal Data Element Framework) Class of application fit
>  >>within the ebXML Semantic Registry model? How would a Semantic Aware
>  >>ebXML Registry support UDEF? The UDEF is an international,
>  >>cross-industry standards effort that is developing Object and Property
>  >>word trees that can be combined to construct semantic identifiers.
>  >>
>  >>[1] http://www.udef.org
>  >
>  > I expected UDEF to come up in this group sooner or later.  IMHO it is
>  > out of scope for this group because the trees it uses for encoding
>  > things are not quite taxonomies.  (They are not taxonomies because the
>  > parent-child relationships for nodes in the tree are not always
>  > subsumption and because concepts are actually denoted by the paths
>  > from these nodes to the root rather than the node itself). This puts
>  > UDEF to the left of taxonomy on Leo's chart, out of the area that
>  > could be described as Ontology or Semantic Model.
>  >
>  > The UDEF Object tree also provides a good example of the problems of
>  > trying to encode a large array of divergent concepts into a simple
>  > single tree.  Some notable results are: different interpretation of
>  > parent-child relationships even at a single parent; and multiple
>  > occurences of the same word at different levels and in different
>  > branches.  This makes identification of a concept difficult and keyword
>  > searches for a concept not very interesting.  The former result points
>  > the need for multiple kinds of relationships in conceptual models,
>  > while the latter result points to the need to support lattices of these
>  > relationships.
>  >
>  > -Evan
>  >
>  >
>
>
> -- 
> Carl Mattocks
>
> co-Chair OASIS ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
> CEO CHECKMi
> v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
> www.CHECKMi.com
> Semantically Smart Compendiums
> (AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Senior Standards Strategist
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://www.adobe.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_workgroup.php.
>
>