[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Proposed agenda - Telecon: Taxonomy Mgt and Support for Semantic Search
I think it needs to be on OWL with the intent of focusing on our taxonomy management needs. OWL-S should be the topic of another discussion taken around the topic of Semantic Search; this would serve as a good intro to this topic for those folks that are going to be working on preparing the Semantic Search Requirements document so we may evaluate the requirements and prioritize. _____ From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 20:05 To: Luc Clément; 'Max Voskob'; 'Katia Sycara'; 'Massimo Paolucci' Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: Proposed agenda - Telecon: Taxonomy Mgt and Support for Semantic Search Luc, yes, we would be ready to give a presentation. I assume it is a presentation on OWL and OWL-S, right? --Katia -----Original Message----- From: Luc Clément [mailto:luc@iclement.net] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 7:15 PM To: 'Max Voskob'; 'Katia Sycara'; 'Massimo Paolucci' Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Proposed agenda - Telecon: Taxonomy Mgt and Support for Semantic Search Proposed agenda for the "Taxonomy Mgt and Support for Semantic Search" Telecon Max: The background section is intended to identify the rationale for my recommendation to focus Monday's meeting on the topic of OWL and its relationship with our Taxonomy Mgt Requirements. Could you please review and confirm that you agree with the proposed course of action. Massimo/Katia: Could you please look at this note as I'm suggesting that we take up your offer for a presentation. This is of course dependent on Max's agreement with the proposed course of action. Call Details Mon 19 Jan at 13:00 Pacific. Toll free: +1 877-272-5572 International: +1 866-453-5550 Participant code: 497-1748 UTC: Mon-21:00, Seattle: Mon-13:00, New York: Mon-16:00, London: Mon-21:00, Frankfurt: Mon-22:00, Moscow: Mon-24:00, Tokyo: Tue-06:00, Sydney: Tue-08:00, Auckland: Tue-10:00 Background When we started out on Requirements 011-014 [1] it was with the intent to deal with UDDI's taxonomy management needs; line items 1-11 of [1] identified a fairly crisp set of requirements which we prioritized. We have since embarked in looking at Semantic Search capabilities which, given OWL's relevance to our taxonomy needs, naturally led us at looking at the possibility of providing semantic search capabilities. That said, we never prioritized semantic search requirements and need to do so. I think that looking at Semantic Search capabilities is worth it, though we need to keep our sights on the initial set of requirements which were to (in short): define a means of publishing taxonomies; query taxonomies; manage taxonomies; and define a normative schema for taxonomies. Solutions need to be in the form of APIs and schemas which satisfy the requirements we identified and prioritized in [1]. From my research, OWL does seem to fit the bill and is clearly timely although I'm concerned whether it's premature for us to leverage it for a number of reasons (stability of the spec; willingness of vendors to implement it; etc. - keep in mind that in order for a spec to become an OASIS standard, implementations are required as a prerequisite and thus we need to be careful in our selection of a technology/spec). Insofar that it makes sense to tackle Req 011-014 along with Req XXX (Semantic Search), let's do so, though I personally think that we need to split the discussion so that we can get as much parallel activity as possible. What makes sense to me for the immediate future is to get a common understanding of OWL (and other relevant options) and evaluate it against our taxonomy requirements and areas such as inheritance, equivalencies and relationship between values of given value sets. As a next step (perhaps as a parallel activity) we should embark on defining our Semantic Search requirements; document them; prioritize them; and identify solutions. Proposed Agenda I recommend that the agenda for Monday's call consist of a discussion of OWL and its applicability to Req 011-014. First on the agenda should be a presentation by Massimo and Katia (they've offered to do so) to introduce us to OWL. As a next step and later meeting, OWL-S can be reviewed as part of discussing the Semantic Seach Requirement (Req-XXX); the outcome of this work needs to be a requirements document that we evaluate and prioritize separately. Max: Do you agree with this course of action? Massimo/Katia: would you be prepared to give a presentation on OWL on Monday? Regards, Luc Luc Clément Secretary, OASIS UDDI Spec TC Web: <http://www.iclement.net/luc> www.iclement.net/luc MSN IM: <mailto:luclclement@hotmail.com> luclclement@hotmail.com Cell: 425.941.0150 [1] UDDI V4 Requirements List, Section 2.7, RQ 011 - 014 - Taxonomy Items, <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/5050/UD DI%20v4%20Requirements%20List.htm#_Toc60926062> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/5050/UDD I%20v4%20Requirements%20List.htm#_Toc60926062 [2] Taxonomy items: API, modeling, format, value sets, i18n, etc., <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/4065/ud di-spec-tc-rq011-14-20031030.doc> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/4065/udd i-spec-tc-rq011-14-20031030.doc
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]