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

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>]

     For what it's worth this sounds like a great direction from my 
perspective.  We are seeing many signs of early experiments in applying 
serious KM power tools to e-business artifacts.  Some inquiries:
     1.  Has OWL become the consensus methodology?  Has DAML+OIL 
satisfactorily converged with it?  Are topic maps out of the 
running?  RDF?  I had the impression at XML2003 that there are still 
multiple plausible parallel paths here.  Obviously one high-level design 
issue for ebXML is potential catholicity among tools and 
specifications.  Putting it differently, is "choosing" OWL a significant 
compatibility or vendor-alignment issue?
     If you go down this path, I've also had chats with other semantic 
methods experts that might be worth pinging.
     2.  Have you followed the possible cognate work in [ontolog-forum] 
(where I think at least Farrukh is a subscriber) or OAGI's Semantic 
Integration Working Group?
     Warm regards and happy new year   Jamie

~   James Bryce Clark
~   Manager Tech Stds Dev, OASIS
~   +1 978 667 5115 x 203 central office
~   +1 310 293 6739 direct

At 06:13 AM 12/31/2003, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
><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 * * 
>*  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. * * *