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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dcml-frame message

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

Subject: RE: [dcml-frame] Ontology and other DCML spec questions

Allow me to expand a bit on your comments, below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Kramer [mailto:andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 5:37 AM


- The ability of semantic Web technologies to effect translations to other concrete data representations and languages is mentioned in the spec several times but no examples are given. Would this be a way to address some of Fred's issues? We would provide both ontology for model definition and exchange and specify (automated) mappings to/from "object oriented" data models and schemas.

[FAC] Data transformation is an established technology for EAI (Enterprise Application Integration) asynchronous message based exchanges, ETL (Extract Transform Load) for feeding data warehouses, and EII (Enterprise Information Integration) for access to heterogeneous databases through a common schema.  I suggest that DCML should leverage these technologies rather than try to exploit an emerging technology (ontologies).


- The rules section of the spec is currently AWOL. Seems to me that this may be some of the "teeth" that Fred identified as missing. Here "Policy" specification would be a desirable goal, rather than implementation level rules. If DCML had a policy/rule language specified, that manipulated both the data center model and (through the model) the real world, then its usefulness would be increased tremendously.

[FAC] I'm not sure what the expectations are for rules, but again DCML should leverage existing work.  OMG is in the final stages of defining Business Semantics of Business Rules that is intended to define a standard form for business rules expressed by business people, and to define a mechanism for expression of these rules with alternative vocabularies (e.g., different natural languages).  OMG is also in the process of defining Production Rules Representation, for expression of rules that are executed by a rule engine.


- Events seems critical to data center manipulation. Should we include a template section for event types, event routing / transform "deployment"?

[FAC]  This and files for deployment, as I see it, should be the primary focus of specifications.  This is where interoperability happens.


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