Re: [regrep-semantic] Does Taxonomy = Semantic Content Management???

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Zachary Alexander wrote:

>The real question is should we create an ebXML Registry Ontology to
>explicitly define what we mean by "semantic support."  When we say the
>ebXML Registry explicitly supports "semantic content management," what
>does that mean? 
>
At the stage we are at in our collective understanding we should use use 
cases as the primary means
to define what we mean by "semantic content management".

I would encourage the team to discuss each posted use case in its thread 
and make sure that we
understand the use case and agree on whether it is one we include or 
exclude from our scope.

>Does "semantic content management" mean that it supports
>taxonomies or taxonomies plus semantics or semantics with templates?
>  
>
We already support taxonomies as you mentioned earlier. I assume we will 
continue to do so.
In a nutshell, with SCM I envision adding support for using OWL 
ontologies in places where today we use
ClassificationScheme. This includes but is not limited to:

-Defining new ontologies

-Using ontology classes within Classification instances to classify things

-Using ontology classes and their attributes in discovery queries

>IMHO: one of the requirements for semantic support is all terminology
>must be explicit. I think the term "semantic content management" has be
>defined, agreed upon and used in the same way through out the project.
>I think that we have to do the same with the concept "semantics" and all
>other major concepts. I think that all concepts have to be defined and
>vetted in the same way to insure the consistency of the work products.
>I think that because projects that use the ebXML "semantic content
>management" support with ontologies will have to do the same with their
>services. 
>  
>
I agree on importance of common understanding of terms and concepts we 
will be using to communicate.
I encourage us to vett these terms and concepts in the context of the 
use case discussions.

Do folks feel it is appropriate to forge our common understanding of 
terms, scope etc. by focusing on identifying and vetting use cases first?

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh