[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: UDEF semantics]
fyi
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: UDEF semantics
From: "Carl Mattocks" <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>
Date: Fri, March 19, 2004 9:00 am
To: "john hardin" <john@sanghainteractive.com>
Cc: dnickull@adobe.com
"David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
"Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
jturpin@cyclonecommerce.com
ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com
golsen@contivo.com
farrukh.najmi@sun.com
carlmattocks@checkmi.com
ewallace@cme.nist.gov
jspeed@cyclonecommerce.com
gshevchik@cyclonecommerce.com
rkhanna@cyclonecommerce.com
mattm@adobe.com
udef.builders@topica.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John:
Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
I think the next part of our conversation would address the 'Use Cases for
Semantic Content' currently being progressed by the ebXMLRegistry Semantic
Content SC. In particular, I would invite you and your UDEF (OAG ?)
colleagues to review the use-cases and provide feedback on 'workload
synchronicity' and ' problem space gaps'. Since, I expect the SC will have
finished an initial review by the end-of-march it could be sent to you
shortly.
If possible, please forward the <<UDEF-CoreComponents-Compare.ppt>>
mentioned in
http://lists.topica.com/lists/udef.builders/read/message.html?mid=808601884&sort=d&start=142
cheers
carl
<quote who="john hardin">
>
> Carl and all on the reg/rep group:
>
> I'm not sure I've got the ability to post to the OASIS group that
originated this list, Duane, can you post this to the right groups for
me, and copy me so that I can capture these email address for the groups
(then get more deeply involved)? THANKS
>
> One of the classic uses that we have planned for in the UDEF groups is
the "linkage" between schemas, ontologies, taxonomies and data
dictionaries, what have you. For example, the data element concept
> "purchase.order.document_date" where "purchase.order.document" is the
object (document) with qualifiers ( of type 'purchase order') and where
"date" is the property of the document, is represented in the UDEF
semi-intelligent ID format as d.t.2_8 or "purchase.order.document_date".
>
> So taking this and placing it in the schemas or RDFs etc, as an
attribute of the data element concept that is used in that format to
specify the purchase order document date, will provide a linkage between
all the docs that have that data element concept. And as you are
probably well aware, every PO has the data element concept of PO Date,
but very few, if any of the formats call this data element by the same
name. So the attribute can be resolved to provide the exact semantic
meaning of the data element. There are two example XML instance docs on
the home page of the UDEF web site (http://www.udef.org) one is OAGIS
and the other is xCBL
> (commerceone). The UDEF IDs are really improperly placed in the actual
instance docs, only for demonstration purposes. We think that this
really belongs in the reference doc (ie: schema, RDF, etc).
>
> In my mind, this is very useful information to have in some form or fashion
> within the reg/rep, due to the fact that the reg/rep holds integration
artifact info, and this most certainly qualifies as that. I still don't
have any opinion on how or where it should be stored in the reg/rep...
Can we perhaps start on some conversations?
>
> thanks
> john
>
> PS - there is an upcoming NIST / OAGi / UDEF Proof of Concept. See
http://lists.topica.com/lists/udef.builders/read/message.html?mid=808601884&sort=d&start=142
I would also like to include CAM assembly paradigms and mechanisms in
this if we can....
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> john c hardin
> director / founder - sangha interactive
> 877.572.5691 - 313.737.1197 cell
> john@sanghainteractive.com
> http://www.sanghainteractive.com
>
> see these for more info:
> http://www.udef.org
> http://www.topica.com/lists/udef.builders/read/
> http://www.geocities.com/johnchardin/
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] re: Will a Universal Data Element
Framework [UDEF] Class of Applications fit within the ebXML Semantic
Registry ?
> * From: "Carl Mattocks" <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>
> * To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
> * Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:33:50 -0500 (EST)
>
> ----------
>
> This is interesting. I want to now more..
>
> Zach:
>
> Please expand on the notion of 'UDEF semantic identifiers'.
>
> Evan:
>
> Please elaborate on 'lattices of these relationships '.
>
> Everyone :
>
> Please consider if the Semantic Web could leverage "concepts ... denoted
by the paths from these nodes to the root rather than the node itself"
>
>
> thanks much
> carl
>
> <quote who="ewallace@cme.nist.gov">
> > Zachary Alexander wrote:
> >
> >>Will a UDEF (Universal Data Element Framework) Class of application
fit within the ebXML Semantic Registry model? How would a Semantic
Aware ebXML Registry support UDEF? The UDEF is an international,
> >>cross-industry standards effort that is developing Object and
Property word trees that can be combined to construct semantic
identifiers.
> >>
> >>[1] <http://www.udef.org>http://www.udef.org
> >
> > I expected UDEF to come up in this group sooner or later. IMHO it is
out of scope for this group because the trees it uses for encoding
things are not quite taxonomies. (They are not taxonomies because
the parent-child relationships for nodes in the tree are not always
subsumption and because concepts are actually denoted by the paths
from these nodes to the root rather than the node itself). This puts
UDEF to the left of taxonomy on Leo's chart, out of the area that
could be described as Ontology or Semantic Model.
> >
> > The UDEF Object tree also provides a good example of the problems of
trying to encode a large array of divergent concepts into a simple
single tree. Some notable results are: different interpretation of
parent-child relationships even at a single parent; and multiple
occurences of the same word at different levels and in different
branches. This makes identification of a concept difficult and
keyword searches for a concept not very interesting. The former
result points the need for multiple kinds of relationships in
conceptual models, while the latter result points to the need to
support lattices of these relationships.
> >
> > -Evan
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
--
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
--
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]