[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF]
John, Actually not! GUID and URI have no enforced structure and meaning in a semantic way. There's an exact way to construct a UDEF code based on the domain model - you just cannot pick what you think might be OK to use for the code. DW. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Gillerman" <john.gillerman@sisconet.com> To: <regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:01 AM Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF] > URI's (with namespaces) or GUID's. Neither tries to enforce a tree. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:33 AM > To: carlmattocks@checkmi.com > Cc: John Gillerman; regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org > 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 > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]