RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] Re: Proposed Charter for OASIS SET TC

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

William,
 
I think the two are vastly different!  Apples and Oranges - both fruit - but there the similarities end.
 
Not sure you saw my message on alignment with current OASIS CAM work and SET?  That I believe is instructive - especially the NIEM.gov work and the wantlist concepts around implementing CONTEXT.
 
We should have the version of jCAM updated by Thursday to include the ability to generate wantlists and apply them from any XSD schema - so you can see these ideas working.
 
I've included below the core statement from XDI - which IMHO leads back to the original DOCUMENT-centric work on providing global identifiers to content - sort of uber-wikipedia concept - of interconnected knowledge.  
 
What we're talking about is optimizing business exchanges and the semantic alignment of those - so that interoperability is achieved more easily than today.  The references out from those exchanges is thus to semantic definitions (typically in a registry such as ebXML registry provides).
 
Thanks, DW
 
<snip>
to define a simple, generalized format and protocol for sharing, linking, and synchronizing data over the Internet and other data networks using XRIs (Extensible Resource Identifiers), a URI-compatible scheme for abstract structured identifiers defined by the OASIS XRI Technical Committee. The overall goal of XDI is to enable data from any data source to be addressed and linked into a machine-readable "dataweb" just as content from any content source can be addressed and linked into the human-readable Web today. 
</snip>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] Re: Proposed Charter for OASIS SET
TC
From: "Barnhill, William CTR USAF AFMC AFRL/RIGA"
<William.Barnhill.ctr@rl.af.mil>
Date: Tue, May 13, 2008 12:41 pm
To: <oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: "Barnhill,  William [USA]" <barnhill_william@bah.com>

Hi,

This looks fascinating, but wouldn't there be a lot of overlap with XRI
Data Interchange Technical Committee (XDI TC)? XDI is developing a
mechanism that may achieve all of the goals of the charter as I
understood it, at first pass. I haven't done a write up of a detailed
comparison yet though. I'd like to first provide the XDI charter for
reading 
( http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xdi/charter.php ) and request one
of the SET TC sponsors to let me know how to end-goals are different
from XDI?

Thanks,
Bill Barnhill
Booz Allen Hamilton
XDI TC Co-Chair, OASIS TAB member



________________________________

From: carl mattocks
Sent: Tue 5/13/2008 11:07 AM
To: Eckenfels. Bernd
Cc: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] Re: Proposed Charter for OASIS SET
TC


I agree with the statement "SET Process and Semantic Model" would be
easily applicable to legacy formants, EDI or Inhouse ..

However, I believe a semantic domain scoped by UBL / CCTS is an
excellent and pragmatic goal for the first version of a SET. 

highest regards

carl

On 5/13/08, Eckenfels. Bernd <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> wrote: 

Hello,

I want to comment on the Scope of the SET TC Charter in regards
to the
close/strict relationship with Core Components. I think the
major semantic
modelling work and a framework to describe that is quite
independend from
the actual data representation. A "SET Process and Semantic
Model" would be
easyly applicable to legacy formants, EDI or Inhouse.

I therefore would propose to add this as a secondaryx goal, or
to weaken the
focus, to allow the TC to determine if they only want to support
CCs or not.
...........................................................
For this purpose, first a UBL "Component
Ontology" will be developed.


In the later phases, this ontology will be expanded to cover
other document
standards based on CCTS.
The Component Ontology serves two major purposes:

. Representing the semantics of components: Document
customization
takes
place at the level of individual types and elements; hence,
translation
needs to be done at the same level. When an automated process
compares two
versions of a schema, it needs to be able to identify
corresponding elements
in these schemas.
When document elements are represented as classes of a common
component
ontology, it becomes possible to utilize that ontology for the
computation
of similarities between elements from different schemas.

. Representing the structure of document schemas: Core
component based
document schemas are complex hierarchies including numerous
types and
elements any of which might be modified through customization. 

........................................................................
.........................................................



Carl Mattocks


-- 
Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC
co-Chair (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
Ontolog ONION Cop Leader
VP Berkeley Town Underwater Search & Rescue Unit
CEO CHECKMi 
vmail (usa) 908 322 8715
CarlMattocks@checkmi.com
http://www.checkmi.com/
CHECKMi:Mate Semantically Savvy Agents 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php