RE: [regrep-semantic] PR2: Explicit support for OWL Ontology/Class in place of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode

["Zachary Alexander" <zack2003@ebtdesign.com>]

<Farrukh from Charter>"The SCMSC will identify specific Semantic Web
technologies (e.g. RDF, OWL) that are necessary to support the
requirements identified for semantic content management." </Farrukh from
Charter> I think that RDF and OWL are knowledge representations. I think
that knowledge representations are payloads. I would classify
technologies as things like classifiers, and inference engines. I think
of semantic supporting technologies as generic not OWL specific. 


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 12:14 PM
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:

> <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
>