-
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.