Re: [regrep-semantic] Semantic ebXML Registry Proposal: The TwoBindings Solution

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

I think we (the SC and vendors) would easily agree that minimizing (rather
than limiting) the number of changes to the ebXML Registry is a good
thing.

I suggest the existing Use case & Industry Scenarios are good examples of 
applications to be supported. Given they address ontology, lattice and
knowledge base structures and do not explicitly exclude KIF, Conceptual
Graphs, Topic Maps, etc.

I acknowledge, if no others are provided, they are (defacto) the basis for
creating a first pass design.



<quote who="Farrukh Najmi">
> Zach thanks for writing our first high level proposal for SCM.
>
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
>>Zachary Alexander wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Semantic Content Management Team:
>>>
>>>Here are some brief ideas I have for adding semantic capability called,
>>>"The Two Bindings Solution."
>>>
>>>Problems:
>>>• How to support Semantic capabilities and limit the number of changes
>>>to the ebXML Registry Standard?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>First I think we should ask the question of why the numer of changes
>>should be limited - not to say that they shouldn't be of course, but to
>>first step back and assess the current environment.
>>
>>
> +1
>
> Also there is no telling what the changes would be in any approach until
> we dig deeper.
>
> The first order bit question is what are the requirements we need to
> meet before we can
> consider specific solutions.
>
>
>
>>>• How to reduce the impact of supporting semantic capabilities by
>>>current ebXML Registry vendors?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Along the same lines, I think we should first ask how many current
>>vendors are there (I know that we know this), and then assess what the
>>impact of supporting semantic capabilities might be to them, before we
>>determine that the impact needs to be reduced.
>>
>>
> +1 again. There are very few registry vendors. Further, we could make
> the SCM
> features initialy optional to reduce burden on vendors. In a subsequent
> release
> we could make them mandatory.
>
>>Joe
>>
>>
>>>Solutions:
>>>• Create a Knowledge Interchange Format Binding.
>>>        o Normative solution
>>>• Create an Open Knowledge Base Connectivity Binding.
>>>        o Non-Normative solution
>>>• Make registry applications responsible for inference and query
>>>formatting.
>>>
>>>
>
> This is a good example of why requirements need to be hammered out first.
>
> I am assuming (needs validation) that the main point of SCM is for the
> registry
> to be able to do inference based on knowledge bases (ontology + instance
> data).
>
> The idea of leaving inference to applications seems to miss the mark by
> a lot.
>
> For example it is not clear to me how would we be able to meet the
> Semantically Aware Query user case:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/5582/ontologySearch.html
>
> without having the registry do inference.
>
> I belive our goals are much higher than simply referencing Ontology
> classes with RegistryObjects.
> I believe we need to be able to store ontologies, knowledge bases and be
> able to do inference based
> on them.
>
> Maybe its is time to finish our pass over use cases and scenarios and
> then move quickly into
> establishing initial first pass requirements.
>
> Can we start threads on suggested requirements based upon existing use
> cases and scenarios
> as a next step?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
>
>
>


-- 
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