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???


Carl,

That works for me...

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: Carl Mattocks [mailto:carlmattocks@checkmi.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 6:03 PM
To: Zachary Alexander
Cc: regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] Does Taxonomy = Semantic Content
Management???

Zach  :

The <ontology-query> information could be placed in the 'Basic Flow'
and/or 'Alternate Flow' slots of the current template.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep-semantic/200401/msg00035.htm
l

cheers

carl

<quote who="Zachary Alexander">
> <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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Carl Mattocks

co-Chair OASIS ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart Compendiums
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi



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