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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

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

Subject: RE: [regrep] [Q] RDF API versus creating an ebXML Registry KnowledgeModel


I agree 100% that having a single API is critically important.  There
already is a perception that "ebXML" is too complicated for the average
developer, giving rise to purpose-driven registries such as UDDI.
Please don't add more APIs!

If ebReg is to allow formats like RDF within a SubmitObjectsRequest, I
would support adding a new type of request, call it CapabilitiesRequest,
where a registry could list the types of XML data it can accept and
where.  I think this would greatly benefit interoperability as this type
of functionality is added.


Matthew MacKenzie
Senior Architect
Adobe Systems

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 9:31 AM
To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [regrep] [Q] RDF API versus creating an ebXML Registry
Knowledge Model

Zachary Alexander wrote:

> All,
> Would it be better to create an ebXML Knowledge Model? This document 
> would outline the Semantic/Knowledge Model and facilitate 
> interoperability. The RDF API solution seems like a bolt-on solution 
> to me that doesn't solve the problem of how to make the registry 
> Semantic/Knowledge aware.
In my strawdog thinking I am assuming that our API would remain largely 
unchanged and as defined by ebRS. What would be different is that in 
addition to RegistryObjects one can submit RDF and OWL content within a 
SubmitObjectsRequest. The query API is where there is likely to be 
impact. The minimal impact is to enhance existing query syntax in order 
express ontology based queries. A more significant impact to query may 
be driven the RDF Data Access WG requirements.

The information model would be largely unchanged in phase 1 other than 
the addition of RDF and OWL model elements.

> Should the question of API's be an implementer's problem or a Registry

> problem?
I believe interoperability requires a single standard API to the

> If we have a Semantic/Knowledge Model that shows how knowledge will be

> represented natively in the Registry then it is up to implementers too

> translate any API to the Registry Knowledge Model.
Again I believe it is important to have a single standard API to the 
registry that also supports new RDF, OWL related features.

Maybe what you are saying is that we do not need to provide APIs to 
manipulate RDF and OWL content and leave that to implementations. If so,

I tend to agree with you.

> One of the problems is that RDF support alone won't support OWL.

> There will have to be a separate API(s) to support OWL and/or OWL 
> Lite, OWL DL, OWL Full. I have also seen papers that talk about using 
> "Topic Maps" to represent Semantic/Knowledge. Seems like five API's 
> right out of the gate.
My sense of API is that it is fairly generic. It is basically what we 
have today embellished to allow Ontology aware queries and use of 
Ontologies in Classification of objects.

BTW reminder that the SCM SC vote closes today so please make sure you 
cast your vote. Thanks.


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to

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