RE: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF]

["Carl Mattocks" <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>]

Ok - If UDEF is a fine example of an applied 'Naming Convention' would it
be possible to identify  'class words'  and / or 'GUID-like patterns' and
map them to a (manufacturing ? ) ontology and create a lattice structure ?

If so  -does this address Zach's orginal question ?

 <quote who="Jeff Pollock">
> Actually, the notion that UDEF has an 'enforced' semantic structure is not
> true in my humble opinion.  When I first started looking into UDEF back in
> 2000/2001 the approach was primarily a 'naming convention standard' for
> tags.  (that if everyone would just name tags the same way then all of our
> interoperability problems would disappear).  Despite some of the recent
> changes to adopt GUID-like patterns for atomic concepts, it is still a
> convention that is almost wholly in the hands of the modeler and/or tag
> namer person.  Any 'semantic pattern' that is based on the notion that
> modelers will model things with the same approach (or concepts, for that
> matter) is bound to fail.  There is plenty of evidence for this in the ER,
> OO and XML worlds.  In short, I don't think that the UDEF 'structure and
> meaning' is relevant (or enforced) in a machine-processable way (unlike
> other true , but admittedly more complex, knowledge representation
> formats).
>
> -Jeff-
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Gillerman [mailto:john.gillerman@sisconet.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:42 AM
> To: regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] [UDEF]
>
>
> Yes, I agree that URI's and GUID's don't have a semantic structure, and so
> are not strictly equivalent to UDEF ID's.  However, I would suggest that
> this is a good thing for our purposes - even if it might not have been
> what
> Joe was asking about.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:35 AM
> To: John Gillerman; regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>


-- 
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