Re: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF]

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

John Gillerman wrote:
> 
> 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,

Ah - my motivation was actually simpler, in that an XML colleague
(outside of OASIS) and I were having a discussion about UDEF, and they
asked me if I knew of any equivalent.

Thanks,
Joe

> 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