RE: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL Ontology/Class in pl

<Jeff> Is PR2 the appropriate context to ask questions regarding the (a) "type of OWL" and (b) "where the OWL interface lies?" Or are these design questions that I can ask for clarity on later? </Jeff> I don’t know what to tell you. The direction of this subcommittee seems to have changed. Originally, it was suppose to address the issues surrounding the query and life cycle management of semantic objects. Now it has become about how best to support OWL Explicitly. When I see terms like explicit, I think that the result will be hardwiring. (a) The discussion have centered on the most popular forms of OWL which appear to be OWL DL. (b) I think that this discussion is suppose to lead to modifications to the ebXML Registry which will eliminate the need for an OWL interface.

Zachary Alexander

The IT Investment Architect

ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325

http://www.ebTDesign.com | http://www.p2peconomy.com | http://www.itinvestmentvehicle.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey T. Pollock [mailto:jeff.pollock@networkinference.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:26 AM
To: 'Farrukh Najmi'; 'Zachary Alexander'
Cc: 'Registry TC - SCM SC'
Subject: RE: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL Ontology/Class in place of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode

Farrukh-

Is PR2 the appropriate context to ask questions regarding the (a) "type of OWL" and (b) "where the OWL interface lies?" Or are these design questions that I can ask for clarity on later?

Specifically:

(a) discussion of the tradeoffs and consequences between OWL-F and OWL-DL

(b) if the regrep gets queried as usual (and returns an OWL ontology as a 'blob') or if there are extensions to allow a reasoner to interface the regrep directly (allowing inferencing against the regrep APIs).

Thanks for your guidance and clarification.

-Jeff-

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:47 AM
To: Zachary Alexander
Cc: 'Registry TC - SCM SC'
Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL Ontology/Class in place of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode

Zachary Alexander wrote:

Farrukh,

I think that this violates ebXML version 1.06 requirements. The ebXML registry should be payload neutral. I think that this should trigger a change in the charter of this subcommittee. I think the charter should be changed to explicitly state that this subcommittee is dedicated to creating an OWL based ebXML Registry.

I said nothing in the PR2 about how the requirement is met. In no way does the requirement imply hardwiring OWL in ebRIM.
Lets focus on teh requirement and not how it is going to be addressed at this stage.

Zachary Alexander

The IT Investment Architect

ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325

http://www.ebTDesign.com | http://www.p2peconomy.com | http://www.itinvestmentvehicle.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 9:04 AM
To: Registry TC - SCM SC
Subject: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL Ontology/Class in place of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode

PR2. Explicit support for OWL Ontology/Class in place of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode

Allow use of an OWL Ontology in ebXML Registry wherever we use ClassificationSchemes in Version 3.
Allow use of an OWL Class in ebXML Registry wherever we use ClassificationNodes in Version 3.

Motivation: Enable multiple-inheritance which was not possible in ClassificationScheme. Enable use cases 4,5,6,9
-- 
Regards,
Farrukh
-- 
Regards,
Farrukh

regrep-semantic message