OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep-semantic message

[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 in place of ClassificationScheme / ClassificationNode


Thus you agree with the need for PR2..

<quote who="Zachary Alexander">
> <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
>>
>
>
>
>


-- 
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


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]