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] ebXML Registry Profile for OWL




Farrukh wrote:

>Dear Colleagues,
>
>Recall the proposal for creating an "ebXML Registry Profile for OWL" 
>some time back as a normative spec deliverable from the SCM SC:
>
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep-semantic/200506/msg00002.html
>
>Asuman, Carl and I discussed this proposal and feel that the time is 
>right for us to start this
>profile specification  in earnest. Asuman, has kindly agreed to be the 
>primary editor for the specification.
>Thanks Asuman! Please count on me on all issues and help in any way that 
>you need.
>
>The tactics we propose is to leverage past work from the DAPD paper and 
>recast the ideas into an ebXML Registry Profile template as exemplified 
>by the draft
>"ebXML Registry Profile for Web Services"
...

I have looked through the references given and still don't completely
understand what is being proposed.  First question is: 
  What is an ebXML Registry Profile?
From the references, it appears to be something similar to
a UML profile which specializes the ebRIM.  However, it uses bindings 
(mappings) instead of stereotypes.  From our previous round in SCM,
I think there is a pretty natural correspondence between some language
elements of OWL and language elements in the ebRIM.  However, there 
were some mistmatches, particularly when reusing Classification and 
ClassificationScheme.  Is one allowed to loosen cardinality constraints
on RIM elements as part of these bindings?  That would seem to be 
necessary as OWL ontologies are rarely taxonomies.

The other question I have is about the UML that describes the language
supported by the profile (at least such a thing was in the Web Services 
profile provided as an example).  This is essentially creating a metamodel 
of the target language depicted in UML.  The OMG Ontology Definition 
Metamodel (ODM) specification is already defining such a metamodel as a 
normative part of the spec. I would not want another standard to define a 
different one.  We had a similar situation with ISO Common Logic (ODM 
contains metamodels for a number of languages) which was resolved by 
incorporating the diagrams from ODM into the Committee Draft for CL.

-Evan

Evan K. Wallace - OMG Ontology PSIG chair
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
NIST





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