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

[ewallace@cme.nist.gov]

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? Does "semantic content management" mean that it supports
>taxonomies or taxonomies plus semantics or semantics with templates?
>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.

Ah.  Now I see why you have mentioned this meta-ontology a few times.
I think you are suggesting that we should "eat our own dog food" and maybe 
save some time by using KR methods to formally define this group's terms.  
An interesting idea.  To do this we would need a language or a tool that 
everyone in the group could use (for defining a Semantic Content Management 
ontology).  Is there one? OWL?  If OWL, which syntax: N-Triples, rdf/xml, 
other?  Even UML Class diagrams might be a viable tool to begin this
process.

If we followed this suggestion, I would still prepare for it by first 
defining use-cases, enumerating a set of terms, and maybe writing some 
english text for each of those terms.  So I think we are headed in the
correct direction in any case.  Perhaps we could start a term list in
parallel with the use-cases?  What do the chairs think?


-Evan




>I think that because projects that use the ebXML "semantic content
>management" support with ontologies will have to do the same with their
>services.