[egov] Re: [huml] The Office of Justice Programs's (OJP) Justice XML Data Dictionay

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi David,

I wasn't thinking at the ebusiness integration deployment level yet, 
so I understand our disconnect. I'm thinking in terms of the higher 
level design considerations, i.e. what resources (standard 
vocabularies) do you want or need to include, before starting 
integration. In that respect a specification package would include 
both an rdf schema for related resources, some of which (the 
resources, not the rdf)  might be included in an application or not, 
as well as the specific xml schema for the specification, which would 
then be used as you outline producing the registry--the only 
difference being that you might find it useful to include some terms 
from other specs or libraries (correctly referenced) that may be more 
appropriate for some uses within an application. In that case, the 
rdf saves you from hunting for specific uses of terms, (or suffering 
the confusion and errors consequent to using incorrect or 
inappropriate terms) and gives you the location for schema (and/or 
namespace) for that resource.

Probably, this disconnect is also due somewhat to the fact that we 
(in HumanML) have numerous such terms with multiple meanings which 
need to be accounted for in various applications which might use 
HumanML. For instance, take the term artifact, which could be used in 
applications in fields as varied as public safety and archeology, but 
the more specific the definition and datatype one needs, the more 
critical the accuracy of one's schema reference must be. A date-time 
value in terms of paleontological frameworks ought not be used for 
forensic evidence from a recent crime scene.

I could cite a lot of examples, especially from the public health 
sector I happen to be studying right now, which is particularly 
lacking in coordinated vocabularies. However, I think all sectors of 
the economy are getting the message that standards are required 
moving forward from here. Of course, that leads some of us to severe 
standards fatigue.

What I am thinking now is how a tool that produces the kind of 
registry you describe would be very useful when applied to resources 
from an rdf schema that accompanies a given specfication, for those 
resources that can be used by such a tool, to produce quick 
comparisons from which an application developer could choose the best 
set for a given application.

Once those decisions, which usually, I recognize, do not need an 
exhaustive comparison search, are done, or not, then tools to drive 
business rules, dependencies and legally binding validations are 
especially excellent and welcome additions to our collective 
repertoire.

Ciao,
Rex

At 9:40 PM -0400 5/16/03, David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:
>Rex,
>
>Yikes!  No that was not the conclusion I was reaching!
>
>For eBusiness integration RDF is not the right tool.  It's
>more at home supporting topic maps in document
>management systems and networks of conceptual
>linkages and associations.
>
>For eBusiness metadata - the OASIS Registry team is
>developing a CCTS representation in XML for storage
>of nouns and aggregates in the Registry.
>
>This will allow the content in the spreadsheet example to
>be populated as XML in the registry, and then used in
>assembly components such as CAM or a vendor mapper.
>
>XML schemata have limited use in collecting ebusiness
>interchange specifications - they can determine structural
>choices for collections of information - but are weak at
>enabling context driven business rules that track dependencies
>and legally binding validations of content.
>
>Cheers, DW.
>======================================================
>Message text written by Rex Brooks
>>
>Now that I have looked at it, it makes very good sense, so it is
>logical that it would have been adopted previously. The fact that I
>had not run across it shows that I do not come from background that
>would have exposed me to the practice. However now that I have seen
>it in practice, I believe that it would make a good addition, perhaps
>a best practice for xml-based standards to provide an rdf schemata to
>accompany xml schemata as a more complete specification
>package--making related resources immediately available to developers.
>
>Ciao,
>Rex
><


-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request