Subject: What if? CCRIM => CCOWL
I have been looking into OWL and RDF in the context of the Semantic Content Management work that we are just starting formally within the TC. In that process I have been developing an OWL ontology for ebXML Registry Information Model (ebRIM). Dieter Jenz, a colleague that many of you may already know, has pointed me to an interesting work he has been a key contributor to, called Open Business Process Management Ontology (BPMO) . Though the BPMO ontology is much broader but parts of it seem to be a mapping of CCTS to OWL. I am particularly intrigued by this work because I believe that OWL may be a much richer syntax to express CCTS concepts. Assuming that we have decent support for managing OWL ontologies and knowledge bases (Ontology + instance data) in ebXML Registry in the future, this could be a very good way to represent CCTS in ebXML Registry. I realize that tremendous amount of good work has been invested into CCRIM. I believe much of the CCRIM work could be leveraged and mapped to a CCOWL (CC expresed in OWL syntax). So the question the the group is whether we should explore re-directing our work from CCRIM to CCOWL. Dieter, I urge you to consider joining the CCRIM SC as well as the soon to be approved Semantic Content Management SC within ebXML Registry TC. I suspect we will have much value from your contributions. This could also provide alignment and synergy between ebXML Registry and BPMO. Joining an SC requires joining the ebXML Registry TC which requires OASIS membership (corporate or individual). -- Regards, Farrukh  Dieter Jenz's description of BPMO Below are some quotes from Dieter that describe BPMO: " There is a WP, which provides a high-level view of the BPMO approach. You can find it at http://www.bpiresearch.com/Resources/RE_OntBPM/re_ontbpm.htm The ultimate goal of the ontology is to provide a semantic repository backbone, which allows business analysts to define business process definitions in a vendor-neutral, platform-neutral, technology-neutral format. In a nutshell, business process definitions can be generated in various target process definition languages (e.g. XPDL, Staffware, BPEL, ...) from a single source. The BPMO also supports the definition of sophisticated public (colaborative) business processes, which I would also call "multilateral" business processes, since two or more parties need to agree on a process definition. In contrast, private processes are "unilateral", meaning that a business partner's consent is not required. XPDL, BPEL and other languages fall into this category. As you know, CCTS and UBL are adequate for the description of business documents. In addition, one can use CCTS to describe business entities (i.e. the business analyst's view of business objects). If you are interested, you can have a look at it at http://www.bpiresearch.com/Resources/RE_OSSOntOWL/re_ossontowl.htm . You would need the Protege tool, though (http://protege.stanford.edu/). "