RE: [tm-pubsubj] Range of Application

["Carl Mattocks" <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>]

Acknowledged - the link is for OASIS members.

Below is an extract from the charter.
<charter-extract>
The Semantic Content Management SC was established by the OASIS ebXML
Registry TC. The SC will define use cases and requirements for managing
semantic content within the ebXML Registry 4.0.....
Ultimately, the SCMSC will deliver the detailed technical specification
for adding semantic content management capabilities in the registry. The
proposal will address changes to RIM, XML Schema, Relational Schema and
Registry Service interfaces that will be necessary to support the new
features. </charter-extract>

<quote who="Bernard Vatant">
>
> Hello Carl
>
> Thanks for your interest and feedback. Unfortunately the link you provide
> is for member access only. Is there any public pointer for
> "regrep-semantic
> SC" - sounds challenging ?
>
>
> Bernard Vatant
> Senior Consultant
> Knowledge Engineering
> Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
>
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Carl Mattocks [mailto:carlmattocks@checkmi.com]
>> Envoyé : jeudi 15 janvier 2004 16:48
>> À : Bernard Vatant
>> Cc : tm-pubsubj
>> Objet : RE: [tm-pubsubj] Range of Application
>>
>>
>> I expect that providing Registry / Repository support for the semantic
>> content referenced as 'Technology Subjects - Symbol proxies' will be
>> discussed at length in the new regrep-semantic SC .
>>
>>  As co-chair I welcome any insights this group can share.
>>
>>  http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-semantic/
>>
>>
>>
>> <quote who="Bernard Vatant">
>>
>> > We have indeed all reasons to extend the scope, and I've been
>> in favor of
>> > that since the beginning. Deliverable 1 makes it pretty clear that the
>> > fundamental notions of "subject" and "topic", even if the
>> terminology is
>> > borrowed from topic maps, have a very general range of application,
>> > encompassing all technologies "dealing with subjects through formal
>> > representations using symbols as proxies".
>> >
>> > Deliverable 1 is just mentioning some of those, like RDF. My
>> guess is that
>> > Deliverable 2 could more explicitly deliver an indicative list of such
>> > major technologies, pointing at what type of proxies those
>> technologies
>> > use, what type of subjects they represent by those proxies,
>> like the kind
>> > of following table.
>> >
>> > Technology		Symbol Proxies
>> Types of subjects
>> >
>> > Topic Maps		Topic						Any
>> > RDF			Resource - URI				Any
>> > Thesaurus		Descriptor
>> Concept
>> > Taxonomy		Class
>> Taxons
>> > Ontology		Class, Instance, Property
>> Classes, Individuals and Relations
>> > Library		Subject Heading
>> Categories of documents
>> > Catalog		Catalog Number
>> Individuals (Products, Galaxies)
>> > Not a minor point either, in terms of outreach.
>> >
>> > Bernard
>> >
>>
>>
>> --


-- 
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