Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM => CCOWL

["Carl Mattocks" <CarlMattocks@CHECKMi.com>]

Agreed - semantic relationships will provide an excellent means of
defining Core Component & CAM type constructs.

It seems we will have a Happy New RIM

and much happiness to you and yours

carl

<quote who="Chiusano Joseph">
> <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

-- 
Carl Mattocks CEO CHECKMi
Operational Intelligence OEM
-------------------------------
e-Business Agents
Semantically Smart Compendiums
-------------------------------
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com