Re: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF]

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Joe,

Various industry coding schemes is one thing that
comes to mind - where rules are applied to come
up with product codes and classifications - healthcare,
aerospace, et al.  There's probably overlap with
STEP here somewhere too.

But obviously that's only one aspect of UDEF.
Another may be vendor CASE tools with their
own proprietary systems again.

DW.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
To: <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>
Cc: "John Gillerman" <john.gillerman@sisconet.com>;
<regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF]


> 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
>