[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM => CCOWL
<Quote> Indeed we could define a Technical Note binding CCTS to V3 RIM and then map that work to a new Technical Note binding CCTS to OWL and expecting that there will be a normative mapping of OWL within ebXML Registry in version 4. </Quote> Great - sounds like a win-win. We'll continue the CCRIM Technical Note using V3 RIM, and place notations in the TN where we believe functionality will be covered by the OWL features in the future (e.g. the Slot issues such as ordered collection of Slots). Then we can update the CCRIM TN accordingly when the OWL work is ready. I'll keep appraised of the OWL work through my participation in the Semantic Content Management SC. Happy New Year, Joe Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > >Farrukh, > > > >I think CCOWL is a great idea. I'm also thinking that we can have the > >best of both worlds here - that is, we don't need to halt our current > >CCRIM work in order to pursue incorporation of semantic technologies. > >The reason I say this is that my understanding is that OWL would apply > >to the assembly functionality in the CCTS spec, which is out of scope of > >the CCRIM effort anyway. Basic registration and maintenance of Core > >Components and their associated entities in the registry would be > >covered by the base registry functionality for handling RegistryObjects. > > > >Does that sound good? > > > > > Joe, > > Incremental progress is always a good idea IMO. Indeed we could define a > Technical Note binding CCTS to V3 RIM and then map that work to a new > Technical Note binding CCTS to OWL and expecting that there will be a > normative mapping of OWL within ebXML Registry in version 4. > > I do want to emphasize though that OWL is not just applicable for > assembly but also for expression of CCTS in XML. In fact as I look at > some of the issues you identified in expressing CCTS in RIM (for > example the Slot limitations), I notice that in an OWL expression, those > limitations simply go away. For example, RIM when expressed in OWL do > not even need to have the notion of a Slot class since OWL has an > inherent ability to express slots or dynamic attributes. > > I am beginning to think that we should not make major changes to RIM to > fix the various limitations identified in V3 (e.g. Slot fixes) and > instead focus on fixing them in V4 when we move toward OWL as an > expression syntax for RIM. > > As for assembly, I have raised the issue privately with David Webber and > will do so on the CAM mailing list as well, that OWL seems to be a > better fit for CAM assembly expression than a custom CAM schema based on > XML Schema. The reasons are the very same reasons why CAM finds XML > Schema to be inadequate for expressing the rich semantics of assembly > rules and constraints. OWL gives CAM a richer expression of these > assembly rules. But that is for a different thread on CAM. > > In summary, the last thing I want is for us to destabilize the CCRIM > work. Instead I want to show the connection between this work and the > Semantic Content Management work and suggest we do the CCRIM work for V3 > based on knowledge of the future directions of V4 toward direct OWL > support within RIM. > > -- > Regards, > Farrukh > > 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/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php.
begin:vcard n:Chiusano;Joseph tel;work:(703) 902-6923 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.bah.com org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012; version:2.1 email;internet:email@example.com title:Senior Consultant fn:Joseph M. Chiusano end:vcard