Re: [egov] Re: [tm-pubsubj] A bit of context RE: [tm-pubsubj] RE: [VM,ALL] Revised scope statement

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Peter,

I believe the bottom line here is resources.

We can do this stuff as part of project work that
provides the means to bring these parts together.

I'm thinking specifically of EU funded work like that
Asuman and her team has been doing on semantics
and registry.

The ebSOA team as well faces a big challenge here.

I'm hopefuly though that good work is occurring
and we can get the OASIS level collaboration
going.  There is a big problem of avoiding
re-invention of the wheel.  Unfortunately this
is done sparodically through vigilance of
individual members right now - and I rather
feel that will continue to be the case - without
some semantic tools and a central capabilities
ontology and registry....!

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <peter@justbrown.net>
To: <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Cc: <tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org>; <egov@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: [egov] Re: [tm-pubsubj] A bit of context RE: [tm-pubsubj] RE:
[VM,ALL] Revised scope statement


> This is really useful info. but only underlines ever
> more the need for some "joined up" thinking even
> *within* OASIS: the eGov TC is doing related work on
> this, as has the ubl, and ebXML RegRep TCs...
>
> The seminar in Norway next week on "seantic
> interoperability"[1], at which a few OASIS TC people
> will be present, might move forward on some of the
> organisational concerns...
>
> Peter
>
> [1] http://www.brreg.no/workshop/
>
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:58:00 +0200, "Bernard Vatant"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The previous message is forwarded from a thread in W3C
> > SWBPD WG about the definition of a
> > "Vocabulary Management" Task Force, of which scope and
> > objectives are as close as can be
> > to PubSubj's.
> >
> > You can follow the thread (and jump in if needed) at
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Jun/0066.html
> >
> > where the TF is defined.
> >
> > Bernard Vatant
> > Senior Consultant
> > Knowledge Engineering
> > Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
> > bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> >
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Bernard Vatant
> > [mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com]
> > > Envoye : jeudi 17 juin 2004 11:30
> > > A : SW Best Practices
> > > Cc : tm-pubsubj
> > > Objet : [tm-pubsubj] RE: [VM,ALL] Revised scope
> > statement
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > Thanks for your clarifications
> > >
> > > > According to
> > http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission, the
> > > > THES/PORT Task Force wants to focus on guidelines
> > and tools
> > > > for representing structured vocabularies using
> > RDF/OWL.
> > >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > > > To my way of thinking, the Vocabulary Management
> TF
> > would,
> > > > in contrast, focus on the identification of terms
> > (and of
> > > > versions of terms and sets of terms) and on
> > policies and
> > > > practices related to the identification of terms.
> > >
> > > The real issue here is to know if it makes sense to
> > identify terms (or anything else)
> > > independently of any application context. For
> > example, in a Thesaurus, the application
> > > context of a term (i.e. its contextual definition)
> is
> > expressed by its BT, NT, RT, UF,
> > > USE, Scope Note ... If you strip a term off all this
> > contextual information,
> > > what's left?
> > > a name? a URI? A bare identifier without any
> > identification context is as useful as a
> > > credit card number outside any banking system.
> > > IOW, relationships between identification and
> > contextual definition are tricky to
> > > entangle, and setting generic term identification
> > valid for *any* context seems very
> > > difficult (read : barely possible).
> > >
> > > > I sense that we might plausibly agree on some
> basic
> > principles
> > > > regarding identification and on the need to
> > articulate one's
> > > > policies, but that there is still "an evolving
> > diversity" of
> > > > approaches towards documenting, representing, and
> > publishing
> > > > a vocabulary.
> > > >
> > > > But that's okay -- at that point, the VM TF could
> > simply point
> > > > off to other documents and practices such as the
> > the THES/PORT
> > > > TF note and the OASIS Published Subjects work you
> > cite below.
> > >
> > > If that means : There is a generic question of term
> > identification, generic principles
> > > that can be set in the SW context (see below), but
> > specific ways to apply those
> > > principles
> > > always depend on context (e.g. Thesaurus,
> Ontologies,
> > Topic Maps, Taxonomies ...) then I
> > > agree.
> > > BTW such an approach could help to get out of the
> > endless debate on URI meaning, by
> > > stressing the (IMO obvious) fact that whatever an
> > identifier identifies
> > > necessarily always
> > > assumes an application context, and that the Web
> > (semantic or otherwise) can barely be
> > > considered a univocal application context ...
> > >
> > > > > 2. I share the concern expressed by Alan about
> > "terminological" vs
> > > > "conceptual" approaches
> > > > > of Vocabulary, and the need for clarification
> > about it in the SW community.
> > > > SKOS input is
> > > > > certainly to be brought to the table, as well as
> > current debates about use of
> > > > dc:subject
> > > > > in various places.
> > > >
> > > > My instinct would be to cite such debates where
> > appropriate
> > > > but to put alot of these issues out of scope for
> > the VM TF
> > > > note itself and focus on lower-hanging fruit.  For
> > example,
> > > > can we agree that terms should be both identified
> > with URIs
> > > > and labelled with human language?
> > >
> > > Hopefully this is a reasonable consensus basis.
> > >
> > > > > 3. It strikes me how the scope and objectives
> are
> > quite similar to those we
> > > set three
> > > > > years ago when founding the OASIS Published
> > Subjects Technical Committee:
> > > > >
> >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tm-pubsubj
> > > > > Note that this TC work has been in sort of
> > standby for a year or so, out of
> > > > both lack of
> > > > > task force, and lack of consensus about how to
> > tackle further deep the
> > > details of very
> > > > > difficult issues left on the table:
> > > > >
> >
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/issues.htm
> > > > > even if a very generic recommendation was
> > eventually released in 2003:
> > > > >
> >
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3050/pubsubj-pt1-1.02-cs.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope this work "as is" could be food for
> > thought for this TF.
> > > >
> > > > The generic recommendation is nicely written.
> > >
> > > Congratulations passed to the TC list - and
> > particularly to Steve Pepper.
> > >
> > > > I read it as
> > > > saying, in essence: "Subject headings intended for
> > use with
> > > > Topic Maps should be identified with URIs,
> labelled
> > with human
> > > > language, accompanied with a statement of intended
> > use, and
> > > > described with metadata."
> > > > If this paraphrase does justice
> > > > to the recommendation, then it would seem to fit
> > perfectly
> > > > with what I think the VM TF note should say.
> > >
> > > Agreed, with some minor corrections to your
> > paraphrase.
> > > 1. "Subject headings" is somehow a restriction of
> > scope of PubSubj recommendation, which
> > > is about "subjects" in the widest possible sense,
> not
> > only those defined in
> > > vocabularies.
> > > But this restriction is valid in VM TF scope.
> > >
> > > 2. Topic Maps is the original application context
> for
> > PSI. But as the
> > > introduction of the
> > > quoted recommendation hopefully makes clear, it's
> not
> > the only one.
> > >
> > > 3. The "human language label" requirement is also a
> > restriction of the PubSubj
> > > recommendation, which simply states that a subject
> > indicator should be "human
> > > interpretable". Think about the specific shade of
> > blue defined by the RGB code #021A81.
> > > This is barely a "human language label", but the
> > color itself is pretty well defined by
> > > the "human readable" subject indicator
> > http://mediagods.com/tools/rgb2hex.html?464,294
> > >
> > > > The open issues, on the other hand, seem to shade
> > off into
> > > > community-specific philosophy with regard to the
> > nature of the
> > > > terms identified and of the relationships among
> > terms.  They
> > > > reflect that "evolving diversity" of choices about
> > which "good
> > > > practice" may for valid historical reasons be
> still
> > unclear --
> > > > things like "# versus /", the descriptive
> > attributes of terms,
> > > > and details on publishing related documentation
> and
> > metadata.
> > > >
> > > > Again, for such issues of "evolving diversity", I
> > think the
> > > > VM TF note should simply summarize and point to
> > ongoing work.
> > > > The VM TF membership would be hopefully diverse
> > enough that we
> > > > could among ourselves come up with a reasonably
> > representative
> > > > set of relevant citations.
> > >
> > > Agreed
> > >
> > > Bernard
> > >
> > > Bernard Vatant
> > > Senior Consultant
> > > Knowledge Engineering
> > > Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
> > > bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> > > > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]De la part
> de
> > Thomas Baker
> > > > Envoye : jeudi 17 juin 2004 05:30
> > > > A : Bernard Vatant
> > > > Cc : Thomas Baker; SW Best Practices
> > > > Objet : Re: [VM,ALL] Revised scope statement
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:05:18PM +0200, Bernard
> > Vatant wrote:
> > > > > I have a few general comments about this TF
> > proposal.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Seems to me there is a great deal of overlap
> > with PORT, alias THES, TF.
> > > In fact, I
> > > > > understand VM work to be in many respects an
> > extension or generalization of
> > > THES work,
> > > > > since a Thesaurus is a specific organization of
> a
> > Vocabulary for a specific
> > > > application
> > > > > (unless I miss something). How will the two TF
> > define their specific scope?
> > > >
> > > > According to
> > http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission, the
> > > > THES/PORT Task Force wants to focus on guidelines
> > and tools
> > > > for representing structured vocabularies using
> > RDF/OWL.
> > > >
> > > > To my way of thinking, the Vocabulary Management
> TF
> > would,
> > > > in contrast, focus on the identification of terms
> > (and of
> > > > versions of terms and sets of terms) and on
> > policies and
> > > > practices related to the identification of terms.
> > > >
> > > > I sense that we might plausibly agree on some
> basic
> > principles
> > > > regarding identification and on the need to
> > articulate one's
> > > > policies, but that there is still "an evolving
> > diversity" of
> > > > approaches towards documenting, representing, and
> > publishing
> > > > a vocabulary.
> > > >
> > > > But that's okay -- at that point, the VM TF could
> > simply point
> > > > off to other documents and practices such as the
> > the THES/PORT
> > > > TF note and the OASIS Published Subjects work you
> > cite below.
> > > >
> > > > > 2. I share the concern expressed by Alan about
> > "terminological" vs
> > > > "conceptual" approaches
> > > > > of Vocabulary, and the need for clarification
> > about it in the SW community.
> > > > SKOS input is
> > > > > certainly to be brought to the table, as well as
> > current debates about use of
> > > > dc:subject
> > > > > in various places.
> > > >
> > > > My instinct would be to cite such debates where
> > appropriate
> > > > but to put alot of these issues out of scope for
> > the VM TF
> > > > note itself and focus on lower-hanging fruit.  For
> > example,
> > > > can we agree that terms should be both identified
> > with URIs
> > > > and labelled with human language?
> > > >
> > > > > 3. It strikes me how the scope and objectives
> are
> > quite similar to those we
> > > set three
> > > > > years ago when founding the OASIS Published
> > Subjects Technical Committee:
> > > > >
> >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tm-pubsubj
> > > > > Note that this TC work has been in sort of
> > standby for a year or so, out of
> > > > both lack of
> > > > > task force, and lack of consensus about how to
> > tackle further deep the
> > > details of very
> > > > > difficult issues left on the table:
> > > > >
> >
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/issues.htm
> > > > > even if a very generic recommendation was
> > eventually released in 2003:
> > > > >
> >
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3050/pubsubj-pt1-1.02-cs.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope this work "as is" could be food for
> > thought for this TF.
> > > >
> > > > The generic recommendation is nicely written.  I
> > read it as
> > > > saying, in essence: "Subject headings intended for
> > use with
> > > > Topic Maps should be identified with URIs,
> labelled
> > with human
> > > > language, accompanied with a statement of intended
> > use, and
> > > > described with metadata."  If this paraphrase does
> > justice
> > > > to the recommendation, then it would seem to fit
> > perfectly
> > > > with what I think the VM TF note should say.
> > > >
> > > > The open issues, on the other hand, seem to shade
> > off into
> > > > community-specific philosophy with regard to the
> > nature of the
> > > > terms identified and of the relationships among
> > terms.  They
> > > > reflect that "evolving diversity" of choices about
> > which "good
> > > > practice" may for valid historical reasons be
> still
> > unclear --
> > > > things like "# versus /", the descriptive
> > attributes of terms,
> > > > and details on publishing related documentation
> and
> > metadata.
> > > >
> > > > Again, for such issues of "evolving diversity", I
> > think the
> > > > VM TF note should simply summarize and point to
> > ongoing work.
> > > > The VM TF membership would be hopefully diverse
> > enough that we
> > > > could among ourselves come up with a reasonably
> > representative
> > > > set of relevant citations.
> > > >
> > > > > Looking into the details, I found at least a
> > dozen of very difficult and open
> > > > issues on
> > > > > the table. The objective of capturing the state
> > of the art for all of them
> > > in a single
> > > > > technical note seems highly challenging, to say
> > the least. So I was about to
> > > > say "count me
> > > > > in" for this TF ... but OTOH I'm a bit scared to
> > get lost again in a known maze :(
> > > >
> > > > It was precisely this fear that motivated me to
> ask
> > for a
> > > > conference call.  I agree we could easily get
> > bogged down by
> > > > wading too far into detail.  The diversity of
> > trees, however,
> > > > should perhaps not prevent us from stepping back
> > and describing
> > > > the forest.
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dr. Thomas Baker
> > Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
> > > > Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven
> > mobile +49-160-9664-2129
> > > > Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
> > work +49-30-8109-9027
> > > > 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany
> > fax +49-2241-144-2352
> > > > Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be
> removed
> > from the roster of the
> > > OASIS TC), go to
> >
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tm-pubsubj/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed
> > from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> >
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tm-pubsubj/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/egov/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>