Re: [regrep-semantic] regrep-owl-profile-1.0-draft 2

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Hi Asuman,

Sorry for the delay in popping my stack.

Some general high comments below before I compile and send comments on 
draft 2.

asuman@srdc.metu.edu.tr wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> regrep-owl-profile-1.0-draft 2 is uploaded to the SC page.
> In the following I will explain how the comments from Evan Wallace
> and Farrukh Najmi are handled.
>
>
>   
....
> Cataloging and Discovery chapters are added.
> We think that the Validation chapter is not relevant for this Profile.
>   
Will revisit above issue further when it comes into context after next 
comment.

>   
>> Line 17:
>>
>> "This document defines the ebXML Registry profile for enhancing ebXML Registry with OWL
>> semantics to make it OWL aware."
>>
>> => How about description below?
>>
>> "This document defines the ebXML Registry profile for publishing, management, discovery and reuse of OWL Ontologies"
>>     
>
>
> In our opinion, this sentence may be misleading since we are mapping OWL ontologies
> to ebXML; not storing them in their own syntax.
>   

I guess this is a basic difference from what I had been assuming. Note 
that my assumption was based on past work we had done on defining use 
cases we envisioned being addressed by our work.

I was envisioning that ebXML Registry was being use to "publishing, 
management, discovery and reuse" of OWL Ontologies.
A mapping from OWL to ebRIM would be defined which would be 
automatically enforced via the OWL (or OWL-S if you prefer) Cataloging 
Service
defined by the Cataloging Profile chapter.

The OWL Cataloging Service would be invoked when OWL Ontology elements 
were submitted and would generate the ebRIM data defined by the mapping.
The registry would contain the generated ebRIM data while the repository 
would contain the actual OWL ontology. Optionally the onltology could be
external (via ExternalLink) but then you would loe the benefits that 
registry can offer if it was managed within the repository.

For example, picture an Ontology development tool like Protege as a 
front-end and a federated ebXML Registry as a back end. Now imagine how nice
it would be to be able to build an ontology collaboratively since the 
ontology is in a shared infrastructure like ebXML Registry.

I personally think that my assumption and vision above need not be 
mutually exclusive from what you had in mind.
The hard work is in defining the mapping and the details. The easy part 
is (optionally) storing the OWL Ontology within the registry in
its original form and supporting the "publishing, management, discovery 
and reuse of OWL Ontologies" vision in addition.

What do you and colleagues think? If my points are not clear then maybe 
we shoule schedule a telecon to discuss this fairly basic question.

Thanks for the terrific progress on the spec.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh


begin:vcard
fn:Farrukh Najmi
n:Najmi;Farrukh
email;internet:farrukh.najmi@sun.com
tel;work:781-442-9017
url:http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/tmp/farrukhRacePointIcon.jpg
version:2.1
end:vcard