[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: UDEF in the UN?]
Monica and ebXML JC -
Per our conversation today, here is some of the latest material on the UDEF,
along with some conversations from the udef@opengroup.org list, copied here as
pasted emails:
http://www.opengroup.org/projects/udef/ is where the most recent activity is
taking place. It contains the mailing list activity, and will contain the
working draft of the SUMO, DOLCE and UDEF interoperability.
Register through Chris Harding, copied on this, along with Ron.
UDEF - http://www.udef.org
DOLCE - http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html
SUMO - http://www.ontologyportal.org/
and possibly an interesting paper, which I haven't read yet...
http://websrv2.tekes.fi/opencms/opencms/OhjelmaPortaali/Kaynnissa/FENIX/fi/Dokumenttiarkisto/Viestinta_ja_aktivointi/Seminaarit/vuosiseminaari2005/FinnONTOTekes.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UDEF Team,
As discussed in today's call, the purpose of this email is to initiate the
thread calling for technical input to the ontology comparison white paper.
During the call, the thought that UDEF and SUMO or DOLCE might co-exist as
complimentary standards was specifically mentioned by two participants - Diwakar
and Duane.
If possible, I would like to focus on this topic first since it would shape the
overall direction of the paper.
Ron Schuldt
Senior Staff Systems Architect
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
#F521 Mail Point DC5694
Littleton, CO 80127
303-977-1414
ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UDEF Team,
Here is my first draft of an outline for the white paper that Mike Daconta,
Manager of the Metadata Center of Excellence at DHS, requested last week at the
GEIA DHS-DoJ Workshop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: A Comparison of Three Semantic Integration Upper Ontologies - SUMO, DOLCE
and UDEF
Purpose/Scope
Key Definitions
e.g. - Ontology, Taxonomy, Upper Ontology, Semantic Integration
Brief Descriptions of Each Ontology
SUMO
DOLCE
UDEF
Definitions/Descriptions of the Comparison Criteria
Note: among the criteria will be structured ID vs unstructured ID
Comparison Table
Conclusions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Schuldt
Senior Staff Systems Architect
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
#F521 Mail Point DC5694
Littleton, CO 80127
303-977-1414
ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Diwakar,
Good questions! Here are my responses indexed according to your question
numbers:
1. My answer to Mike Daconta's question regarding why a structured ID is
better was in the context of viewing slide 27 within the presentation.
Essentially I stated that a structured (intelligent) ID offers many more
search and discovery options than a randomly assigned unstructured
(unintelligent) ID. The structured ID can leverage the use of the wild
card notation (*) when conducting searches for information across
multiple systems.
The ability to query many disparate systems and then to narrow the
search criteria seems to be particularly important to law enforcement
and homeland security end-users. The following example should help
illustrate the application of a structured ID to law enforcement and
homeland security. Note -- the example assumes that all law enforcement
applications (international, federal, state and local) connected to the
law enforcement network (e.g., NLETS http://www.nlets.org/index.asp)
have been UDEF enabled with UDEF structured IDs exposed in the APIs and
the query tools (such as PDAs used by state patrol officers) have been
UDEF enabled with pre-defined UDEF names with optional wild cards for
queries. The end users (in this example law enforcement officers) do not
need to know any UDEF IDs, they simply know how to use the UDEF tree
structures (names) for those subsets of the UDEF pertinent to their
operations.
The example scenario is that a state patrol officer in California stops
a speeder headed south near the Mexican border. The person caught
speeding has an Arizona driver's license. Using his PDA, the officer
enters a query into the Arizona connection into the NLETS network (tied
to every state in the U.S. plus other countries) to determine if the
individual "John Doe" with birth date of June 1, 1970 is registered in
Arizona. The associated UDEF names and IDs are --- Person First Name
(5_4.10), Person Last Name (5_5.10), Person Birth Date (5_51.6). The
Arizona system confirms that John Doe born June 1, 1970 has a drivers
license from Arizona. The officer then queries the entire NLETS network
with a wild card UDEF query (his PDA generates *5_4.10, *5_5.10,
*5_51.6) to determine if John Doe born June 1, 1970 appears in any law
enforcement system tied to NLETS. This time the result showing hits for
"suspect" and "released criminal" as the UDEF wild card fillers shows
that John Doe is a released criminal from Seattle, Washington and is
currently a suspect in a crime in Reno, Nevada. He then requests a photo
of John Doe from the Reno, Nevada system. The officer decides to detain
the speeder for further questioning. The entire query process takes less
than two minutes.
Based on what I heard in Phoenix about NLETS, GJXDM, BTS and Homeland
Security, this is a very realistic scenario and a plausible application
for the UDEF and its structured IDs. I assume that you would see many
other applications for use of the wild card with a structured ID based
UDEF.
2. I believe the above answer addresses the unintelligent ID question
since I am assuming that a system generated ID is randomly assigned and
is not derived from the UDEF ontology.
3. If a query is targeted to a known field within an application or
multiple applications, then a system generated ID may be faster - but
the structured ID of UDEF enables wild card queries in a multitude of
possible scenarios.
4. UDEF, SUMO and DOLCE seem to share the fact that they are upper
ontologies with common objective - semantic integration. Although I need
to study SUMO and DOLCE further, there seems to be some important
differences.
The purpose of the white paper is to document the comparison (probably
in a comparison table) - but some of the differences include the
following:
a. UDEF is an instantiation of ISO/IEC 11179-5 - the other two are not
b. The UDEF provides structured IDs - the other two do not
c. UDEF is more intuitive and easier to navigate by nearly anyone who
might try using it. The UDEF only requires about 4-6 hours of training.
The UDEF is based on mappings from existing normalized data models
(standards) used by businesses today - the other two are based on
predicate calculus and first order logic. Although DOLCE seems to be
better than SUMO, the terminology of both are less intuitive than UDEF.
One needs to be a highly educated mathematician to begin to understand
and apply the other two.
Correct me if I made any incorrect assertions about SUMO
http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/SUMO/index.html or DOLCE
http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html since I am studying both.
I hope this helps.
Ron Schuldt
Senior Staff Systems Architect
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
#F521 Mail Point DC5694
Littleton, CO 80127
303-977-1414
ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Diwakar R G [mailto:diwakar@cemantica.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 5:04 PM
To: Schuldt, Ron L; 'Chris Harding'; udef@opengroup.org
Subject: RE: GEIA DHS-DoJ Workshop - Meeting Summary
Ron,
It's great that UDEF is gaining traction and we at Cemantica can't help
but
feel happy with the fact that ontologies and the concept of semantics
are
becoming mainstream.
Based on your meeting summary of the workshop and in the spirit of
having
active participation/discussions, I have a few questions/comments.
1. What was your answer to Mike's question about why a structured ID is
better?
2. Can you explain what you mean by unintelligent ID (if it is not the
same
answer to the question above)? Do you believe "b.i.9_6.2.1" is more
intelligent than a system generated ID such as "57894930"?
3. Regarding the debate whether human generated ID is better than system
generated - let me play the devil's advocate here:
The argument can be looked at from - whose view point is it
un-intelligent?
>From a human point of view having a b.i.9_6.2.1 is easier if I had the
UDEF
trees in front of me and I am manually locating the right
node/branch/tree.
But then if I am manually locating a tree then I would rather have:
"Line.Item.Product_Total.Price.Amount" than the ID.
However, if a machine (application) is looking at it then I could argue
that
'57894930' is easier for the machine to understand and find the
appropriate
node/branch/tree.
Once again when is it likely for a user to walk a tree to find the ID
manually - hopefully never? Since, I would think that he/she will be
using
an application/registry to give them the right value. If we are
expecting an
application to resolve b.i.9_.2.1, then I would argue that it may be
easier
for the application to locate 57894930 rather than having to parse a
UID.
4. What in your opinion is the difference between SUMO, Dolce and UDEF?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Regards,
Diwakar R G
Founder & CEO
C E M A N T I C A , I n c.
interoperable information
http://www.cemantica.com
(408) 472-6576
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
-----Original Message-----
From: Schuldt, Ron L [mailto:ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:37 AM
To: Chris Harding; udef@opengroup.org
Subject: RE: GEIA DHS-DoJ Workshop - Meeting Summary
Team,
I welcome input on the white paper from the membership of this team.
I will have a first draft of an outline by Wednesday. Perhaps we could
include this as an agenda item on Friday's call.
Ron Schuldt
Senior Staff Systems Architect
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
#F521 Mail Point DC5694
Littleton, CO 80127
303-977-1414
ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Harding [mailto:c.harding@opengroup.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:14 AM
To: Schuldt, Ron L; udef@opengroup.org
Subject: Re: GEIA DHS-DoJ Workshop - Meeting Summary
Hi, Ron -
This all sounds very interesting!
The White Paper sounds as though it could be a valuable means of making
the
case for the UDEF. Perhaps other members of the group can help you to
put
it together?
At 21:23 18/04/2005, Schuldt, Ron L wrote:
>>UDEF Team,
>>
>> I attended a 3-day GEIA
<http://www.geia.org/index.asp?bid=945>
>> Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - Department of Justice (DoJ)
>> Workshop in Phoenix. Among the participants, two key government
attendees
>> included Michael Daconta, DHS Metadata Program Manager in the Office
of
>> the CIO and Jim Feagans, DoJ Program Manager of the Global Justice XML
>> Data Model (GJXDM)
>> <http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=195>
>>
>> In addition to DHS and DoJ, other organizations represented at
>> the workshop included: U.S Border Patrol, Space and Naval Warfare
>> Systems, Maricopa County Arizona Law Enforcement, The National
Consortium
>> for Justice Information and Statistics (SEARCH)
<http://www.search.org/>,
>> The International Justice and Public Safety Information Sharing
Network
>> (NLETS) <http://www.nlets.org/index.asp>, Bio Key
>> <http://www.bio-key.com/>, Datamaxx <http://www.datamaxx.com/>, Border
>> and Transportation Security (BTS) Net Program, BTS Data Element
>> Dictionary (DED) Program and Lockheed Martin. The BTS Net and BTS DED
>> Programs are funded by DHS under Mike Daconta.
>>
>> During the GEIA plenary session on Tuesday morning, Mike
Daconta
>> gave an excellent presentation that explains the meaning of metadata
and
>> provides an introduction to the DHS Metadata Center of Excellence
(MCOE)
>> and the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM). During his
>> presentation, Mike mentioned that the DHS MCOE is in the process of
down
>> selecting from five candidate metadata management vendors to establish
a
>> DHS-wide metadata registry/repository. In addition to being an active
>> participant in the W3C's Semantic Web, Mike leads the DHS Metadata
Center
>> of Excellence and in the recent past played a key role in creating
DoD's
>> Net Centric architecture. Slides 3 and 19 in Mike's presentation
>> highlight his experience, books that he has authored and activities
that
>> he either leads or is directly involved in. The presentation has been
>> added to the UDEF Interested Parties Web site.
>>
>> Jim Feagans distributed the draft NIEM Concept of Operations
at
>> the start of the DHS-DoJ Workshop breakout. One of the objectives of
the
>> workshop was to recommend changes to the draft ConOps and technical
>> architecture of the NIEM. A second objective included continued work
in
>> mapping the gaps between various systems (represented by forms and
>> spreadsheets) used by various agencies (e.g., Border Patrol, INS, FBI,
>> state law enforcement, etc.) and the GJXDM. The GJXDM
>> <http://it.ojp.gov/jxdm/3.0.2/index.html> is the baseline starting
point
>> for NIEM version 1. The additions required to fill gaps will represent
>> future versions of the NIEM. A third objective was to identify use
cases
>> and associated messages used by the agencies that would use the NIEM.
The
>> draft ConOps has been added to the Web site.
>>
>> I was invited to present the UDEF as a possible future
technology
>> insertion to the NIEM. After the presentation there was general
support
>> for the UDEF concept by all attendees. Mike Daconta asked that I
prepare
>> a white paper comparing/contrasting the UDEF to two other top level
>> ontologies - SUMO <http://www.ontologyportal.org/> and DOLCE
>> <http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html> Mike Daconta liked the answer I
gave
>> in response to his question about why the UDEF structured ID was
better
>> than a randomly assigned unintelligent ID. He wants the difference
>> documented in the white paper since there is a "raging debate"
according
>> to Mike within the W3C Semantic Web community about that subject.
>>
>> On Wednesday, the workshop participants divided into three
teams
>> - each tasked to make progress toward one of the three objectives
listed
>> above. I participated with the mapping team. Each team provided an out
>> brief at the end of the day. Mike and Jim were very pleased with the
>> results. I can provide the out brief results of the 3 teams upon
request.
>>
>> On Thursday, the NLETS Deputy Executive Director (Bonnie
Locke)
>> briefed the workshop participants about NLETS and a pilot project
named
>> "West Coast Demo." The pilot will illustrate how the GJXDM plus the
NLETS
>> network can be used to share time critical information with law
>> enforcement agencies across several states. Tentatively, Alaska,
>> California and Arizona will be involved in the West Coast Demo. The
NLETS
>> consortium is sponsored by all 50 states and each state has a voting
>> representative on NLETS. In addition, federal law enforcement agencies
>> also sponsor the NLETS effort.
>>
>> I suggested to Mike Daconta that the NCOIC team might be
>> interested in hearing the DHS metadata management strategy. Mike
>> indicated he would be interested in meeting with the NCOIC team. Today
I
>> made contact with a Lockheed Martin folks who are members of the NCOIC
>> technical team. They agreed to forward the suggestion to the NCOIC
>> technical team.
>>
>>Ron Schuldt
>>Senior Staff Systems Architect
>>Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
>>11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
>>#F521 Mail Point DC5694
>>Littleton, CO 80127
>>303-977-1414
>>ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com
>>
Regards,
Chris
+++++
========================================================================
Dr. Christopher J. Harding
T H E Forum Director for Directory Interoperability and
Information
Management
O P E N Thames Tower, 37-45 Station Road, Reading RG1 1LX, UK
G R O U P Mailto:c.harding@opengroup.org Phone (mobile): +44 774
063 1520
WWW: http://www.opengroup.org
========================================================================
IT Architecture Practitioners Conference Europe 2005
Jurys Ballsbridge Hotel, Dublin, Ireland - April 25-27, 2005
http://opengroup.org/dublin2005/
========================================================================
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: UDEF in the UN?
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 03:45:27 -0400
From: john c hardin <johnchardin@comcast.net>
Reply-To: john@crossconnections.ws
Organization: ..:: CrossConnections.ws ::..
To: john@crossconnections.ws
CC: Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>, udef@opengroup.org, Chris Harding
<c.harding@opengroup.org>, "Schuldt, Ron L" <ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com>, David RR
Webber <david@drrw.info>, "Feder, Stuart" <Stuart.Feder@bis.org>, "A. G."
<agregory@aeon-llc.com>
References: <42776C7D.1000908@comcast.net> <42778C2E.2000400@adobe.com>
<42779FAD.1070202@comcast.net> <4277A65F.2000106@adobe.com>
<42787B35.2040703@comcast.net>
Attachment.
john c hardin wrote:
> Mr. Gregory and Mr. Feder,
> I was reading with interest the SDMX web pages, and wanted to introduce
> the group, via invitation, to a metadata and semantic interoperability
> strategy called the Universal Data Element Framework (UDEF).
>
> The effort has come out of the Aerospace Industries Association, and the
> AFEI.org groups, and has been picked up by the OpenGroup.org.
>
> We would very much welcome the influence and involvement of the SMDX
> group, and the opportunity to collaborate with UN/CEFACT.
>
> An overview, by Ron Schuldt, is attached.
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/projects/udef/
> http://www.udef.org
>
> Best regards,
> John Hardin
>
> ~~~~~~~~~
> john c hardin
> Chair, OASIS ebSOA Technical Committee
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ebsoa
> 313.279.1377 new *VONAGE* number
> mailto:john@crossconnections.ws
>
> "The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of
> a global
> village."
>
> Marshall McLuhan, "Gutenberg Galaxy", 1962
>
> Duane Nickull wrote:
>
>> Arofan and Stuart:
>>
>> I want to introduce you to some folks who are interested in SDMX.
>> John Hardin has some specific ideas he would like to share.
>>
>> Duane
>>
>> john c hardin wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, Duane. If you could do a quick intro, I'll follow up with a
>>> brief explanation of the UDEF, possible application to the SDMX and
>>> an intro to Chris and the group.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the offer
>>> john
>>>
>>> Duane Nickull wrote:
>>>
>>>> John:
>>>>
>>>> Yes - very familiar. Arofan Gregory and Stuart Feder have been
>>>> working on this for years. The need is there for sure.
>>>>
>>>> If you need an intro, let me know. Stuart has been nominated as the
>>>> new chair of UN/CEFACT.
>>>>
>>>> Duane
>>>>
>>>> john c hardin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just signed up for this:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.sdmx.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone else seen it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's an excerpt from the Chairman's letter:
>>>>>
>>>>> In the context of the "Information Society" statistics are becoming
>>>>> more and more important. National and international data providers
>>>>> are aware that the production of high quality statistics is
>>>>> fundamental to improve decision making at all levels. On the other
>>>>> hand, new ICT tools allow data users and producers to access and
>>>>> exchange information more easily than ever. The availability of
>>>>> standards for exchanging and sharing statistical data and metadata
>>>>> can greatly improve the overall quality of statistics (timeliness,
>>>>> accessibility, interpretability, etc.) and increase the efficiency
>>>>> of statistical activities carried out by national and international
>>>>> organisations.
>>>>>
>>>>> The aim of the SDMX initiative is to develop such standards using
>>>>> data exchange formats based on EDI or eXtensible Mark-up Language
>>>>> (XML), and tools such as web services. For national and
>>>>> international organisations who collect, manage and disseminate
>>>>> statistics, the availability of these standards will set the stage
>>>>> for a future paradigm shift, from a data collection system based
>>>>> largely on questionnaires to new approaches based on "data
>>>>> sharing", with important benefits both for data producers and data
>>>>> users.
>>>>>
>>>>> The involvement of all parties interested in contributing to the
>>>>> SDMX is welcome and the new SDMX web site has been precisely
>>>>> designed to foster information sharing and the interaction between
>>>>> experts involved in the SDMX project and the outside world.
>>>>> Therefore, comments and proposals to improve our work, as well as
>>>>> to share experiences in this field, would be highly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enrico Giovannini
>>>>> Chairman of the SDMX Sponsors Committee
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
~~~~~~~~~
john c hardin
Chair, OASIS ebSOA Technical Committee
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ebsoa
313.279.1377 new *VONAGE* number
mailto:john@crossconnections.ws
"The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global
village."
Marshall McLuhan, "Gutenberg Galaxy", 1962
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]