Re: [ebcore] Semantic alignment support in CPPA

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com>]

Hi Bahareh,

Nice to hear that your work on ebXML standards is progressing well. 
Semantic Interop is a very important area in business process 
integration. Please do share your work when you feel it is ready and 
feel free to post any questions regarding underlying specs to this list. 
All the best.

On 03/02/2010 07:59 AM, Bahareh Heravi wrote:
> Dear Farrukh,
>
> Nice to see you here again, I trust you are well.
>
> It might be of interest to you that I am developing an Ontology for ebBP as a part of my PhD project, with the aim of Semantic (Standard based) Interoperation. I am doing it in collaboration with Stephen Green and Fujitsu Labs of Europe.
>
> Best regards
> Bahareh
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Bahareh R. Heravi
> PhD Researcher
> Department of Information Systems&  Computing
> Brunel University
> Uxbridge, Middlesex, London, UB8 3PH, United Kingdom.
> Web: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~cspgbrh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moberg Dale [mailto:dmoberg@axway.com]
> Sent: Tue 2/23/2010 4:39 PM
> To: Farrukh Najmi; ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ebcore] Semantic alignment support in CPPA
>
> Hi Farrukh,
>
> The OWL query support definitely sounds relevant.
>
> The SET TC has also developed OWL ontologies for UNCEFACT CCTS that are
> relevant.
>
> David Webber can explain their progress so far to us, and relate it to
> his CAM versions of similar functionality. The SET TC has actually been
> more ambitious than developing support for simple semantic alignment
> constraints/rules and are seeking automatic mapping between diverse
> message sets (UBL and GS1, for example) that each have a CC
> "conformance."
>
> CPPA just needs to have a survey of existing approaches so that for
> version 3.0, suitable containers can be defined to organize the
> information that constitutes the agreement on "semantic" conventions
> (philosophically viewed, these conventions will of course really just be
> more agreements about syntactic rules that we think of as constraining
> the intended semantics).
>
> Your explanation of the examples and maybe how to reference the
> information (or regrep query for it!) would I think be very useful.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dale Moberg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:13 AM
> To: ebcore@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ebcore] Semantic alignment support in CPPA
>
>
> Hi Dale,
>
> Can you tell me what I need to read for background regarding semantic
> alignment support in CPPA.
> in RegRep 4 we have an OWL profile 2.0 which supports semantic alignment
>
> via the RegRep query interface.
>
> An example use case in weather domain that I am familiar with is:
>
> Find all datasets that have a dataset field matching specified fieldname
>
> OR any other field name that is semantically similar to specified
> fieldname WHERE similarity threshold may be specified as a float value
> between 0.0 (no similarity) and 1.0 (completely synonymity).
>
> The capability uses domain ontologies along with alignment ontologies to
>
> determine similar terms.
>
> Does this sort of functional sound relevant?
>
> On 02/22/2010 05:05 PM, Moberg Dale wrote:
>    
>> Agenda items addition:
>>
>> semantic alignment support in CPPA. reuse ebBP type? is anything from
>> registry relevant? what in CCTS and related repositories might be
>> referenced as part of a documentation for semantic agreements? are
>> implementation guides needed? test constraints (like xslt xquery
>> schematron or cam documents that in effect constitute agreements on
>>      
> some
>    
>> aspect of semantics?
>>
>> how can all these varied materials be documented consisely and
>> accurately?
>>
>>
>>      
>
>    


-- 
Regards,
Farrukh

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com