Re: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL Ontology/Class inplace of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode

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

+ 1 on classification supporting inheritance

A real challange will be providing 'discovery' support for OWL (and other)
ontologies that are stored as a blob,  or in an XML schema, or in RDF/S,
or in any flavor of OWL.


<quote who="Farrukh Najmi">
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey T. Pollock wrote:
>
>
>   Message
>
>   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?
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> At the moment lets focus on the ongoing debate on the validity of the
> requirement. If PR2 is agreed upon then we can refine downstream
> details such as type of OWL.
>
> As for interface, I am assuming that there would be no OWL specific
> interfaces to the registry. In my current thinking, there may be
> generic extensions to
> the Query interface to support Ontology browsing and reasoning.
>
>
>
>   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:
>
>
>       @font-face {
> 	font-family: Tahoma;
> }
> @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
> P.MsoNormal {
> 	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: "Times
> New Roman"
> }
> LI.MsoNormal {
> 	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: "Times
> New Roman"
> }
> DIV.MsoNormal {
> 	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: "Times
> New Roman"
> }
> A:link {
> 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
> }
> SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
> 	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
> }
> A:visited {
> 	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
> }
> SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
> 	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
> }
> P {
> 	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; COLOR: black; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in;
> FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
> }
> PRE {
> 	FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier
> New"
> }
> SPAN.EmailStyle19 {
> 	COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial
> }
> DIV.Section1 {
> 	page: Section1
> }
>
>
>       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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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