RE: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF]

["John Gillerman" <john.gillerman@sisconet.com>]

Isn't the issue with regard to the ebXML registry the need for ID's for
generic ontology object classes, properties types, relationship types, and
object instances?  I don't know if this is what was driving Joe's question,
but for our work I think we need something very generic.  My understanding
is that the SW community uses URI's.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Mattocks [mailto:carlmattocks@checkmi.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:58 AM
To: David RR Webber
Cc: Chiusano Joseph; carlmattocks@checkmi.com; John Gillerman;
regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF]


I was thinking STEP ..
<quote who="David RR Webber">
> 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
>>
>
>


--
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