[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL Ontology/Class inplace of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode
Zachary Alexander wrote: > <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. > Our charter is posted at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-semantic/description.php Part of the charter I quote below: " The SCMSC will identify specific Semantic Web technologies (e.g. RDF, OWL) that are necessary to support the requirements identified for semantic content management. " I believe PR2 is very much within the spirit of the original charter. Please recall that the "P" in "PR" is for "Proposed". We are brainstorming on requirements. Please understand that I do not have any hidden agendas here. I do not have an OWL implementation or product I am looking to peddle. I am just doing the best I can to keep ideas and discussion flowing within the SC. -- Regards, Farrukh > 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 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]