OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep-semantic message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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


<Evan> 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>
Team, I agree with all of this. What do you think about adding an
"Ontology Query" section to the use case? The Ontology Query section
would capture the questions that will be answered by the ontology at the
end of the ontology development process. I think that it might also help
insure the completeness of the use case.

<Example>ID:  7

Title
Extend information model with user-defined classes 

Description
Currently ebXML Registry allow clients to extend Registry Information
Model (RIM) only via attribute extension using Slots on existing RIM
classes.
New RIM classes cannot be defined.

This use case envisions allowing clients to extend Registry Information
Model (RIM) classes be defining new classes that may be sub-classes of
existing  RIM classes .
 
The result is that verticals and enterprises may specialize ebXML RIM to
meet their domain specific needs.</Example>

<ontology_Query ID="1">How does a user extend the ebXML RIM to meet
domain needs? </ontology_Query>
<ontology_Query ID="2">Are there multiple options for extending the
ebXML RIM to meet domain needs? </ontology_Query>
<ontology_Query ID="3"> What are the constraints for extending the ebXML
RIM to meet the domain needs? </ontology_Query>

Zachary Alexander
The IT Investment Architect 
ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325
http://www.ebTDesign.com | http://www.p2pspeaker.com
http://www.p2peconomy.com | http://www.itinvestmentvehicle.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: ewallace@cme.nist.gov [mailto:ewallace@cme.nist.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:40 PM
To: regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] Does Taxonomy = Semantic Content
Management???


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. 








[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]