Re: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF]

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Can anyone please tell me if they are aware of a UDEF "equivalent" (or
rough equivalent) anywhere? IOW, what would UDEF "compete" with?

Thanks,
Joe

Carl Mattocks wrote:
> 
> Given the ebXMLRegistry can store all types of relationships - I think we
> should have a more formal discussion on lattice support. Particulary,
> since the UDEF structure is a 'community-of-interest specific taxonomy' .
> 
> Zach:
> Please create a 'Use Case' for UDEF taxonomy support.
> 
> <quote who="John Gillerman">
> > I very much agree with Evan's analysis.  It is very hard to express an
> > ontology with single tree that let along one that doesn't have typed
> > relationships.  It becomes even more difficult when one tries to take the
> > tree cross industry and international.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ewallace@cme.nist.gov [mailto:ewallace@cme.nist.gov]
> > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 5:59 PM
> > To: carlmattocks@checkmi.com
> > Cc: regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Carl Mattocks" <carlmattocks@checkmi.com> wrote:
> >
> >>This is interesting. I want to now more..
> >>
> >>Zach:
> >>
> >>Please expand on the notion of 'UDEF semantic identifiers'.
> >>
> >>Evan:
> >>
> >>Please elaborate on 'lattices of these relationships '.
> >>
> >
> > I meant networks rather than strict trees.  A simple example network
> > is a class with multiple inheritance.
> >
> > There are also horizontal relationships like
> > synonyms and properties.  Think about a design model of a racecar which
> > describes different component systems.  All of these components have
> > a partOf relation to the car.  Something like a transmission often
> > plays at least two different roles in a hierarchy of component systems
> > in a racecar.  It is partOf the drivetrain and may be partOf the load
> > bearing structural system.   Twisting all these properties and
> > relationships into a strict hierarchy leads to awkward models such as
> > the UDEF Object tree.
> >
> > I didn't mean to imply that supporting lattices was unusual for modeling
> > languages.  It isn't.  I was arguing that such expressiveness is necessary
> > for useful semantic models.
> >
> >>Everyone :
> >>
> >>Please consider if the Semantic Web could leverage "concepts ... denoted
> >>by the paths from these nodes to the root rather than the node itself"
> >
> > To a certain extent they already do.  I was trying to simplify a finer
> > distinction.  The path back to the root through subtype relations in an
> > RDFS or OWL model of course has implications on a class and instances
> > (individuals) of that class.  Just the implications you would expect if
> > you have programmed in an Object Orient programming language.  If
> > Racecar is a subtypeOf Car is a subtypeOf Vehicle, then any Racecar
> > instance is also a Car and a Vehicle instance and inherits the
> > characteristics of those supertypes.
> >
> > By constrast, the relations in the UDEF Object tree do not have any
> > explicitly defined implications.  It's only when you have followed the
> > path that you might be able to infer what the relations might have been
> > along each connection in the path.  This makes the tree hard to navigate
> > when looking for a specific concept.  It also can lead to related or
> > similar concepts being located quite far apart in the tree.
> >
> > -Evan
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 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