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] [Fwd: Re: SCM - A liaison Affair]

I didn't see this message until the deadline.  Here are some comments

>Particularly, to improve abstract below please answer the following by end
>of day :
>Would you want to attend the 30 min presentation ?
>If yes - Why ?
>If not - Why ?

Yes.  It would be nice to hear a rich explanation of this group's goals
and intended work products.

>Would you want to be acknowledged as co-athor ?
>if Yes - it will be !
>if Not - what change would need to be made ?

Not.  See below for issues that I immediately observed.

> Expanding on the intent to ¡¥not re-invent the wheel¡¦  the expected
>outcome of each SCMSC liaison activity is outlined. Specifically, a
>progress report will be given for the groups that have been asked to
>validate requirements. ..
> „h RDF WG
> „h Ontology WG
> „h Data Access WG
> „h Dublin Core
> „h OASIS Published Subjects Indicator Semantic Web Services
> „h OASIS egov

At a minimum, change the W3C working group names to:
W3C Web Ontology WG
W3C RDF Data Access WG

I have also already suggested that it would probably be more beneficial
for SCM to liaise with the soon-to-be-formed W3C Semantic Web Best Practices
and Deployment (SWBPD) Working Group than with RDF Core and WebOnt.  This is, 
in part, because both of these language WGs are likely to only have their 
charters extended for six more months.  Beyond this, these WGs will disappear 
until the next revision of these languages is needed.  The remit of the SWBPD 
also fits better with SCM than that of the language WGs.  IMO Ontology 
repositories are a key element of deployment which will enable the more 
powerful uses of OWL and RDF.

So I would further request that the SWBPD WG be added to the above list of
liaison groups and that the presenter note the probable pending demise of
the language WGs.

Less obvious issues below:
> The Semantic Content Management SC is deeply involved in a Liaison
>Affair. This presentation will expose the types of liaisons preferred ,
>approach to existing relationships, expectations at registration and 
>cases for repository use.  It  will also explain why the management of
>semantic content helps increase the reliability of information fueling
>advanced Web search, software agents and knowledge management .

How about changing "software agents" to "interoperability of software
agents" in the last sentence above?  Alternatively, add "integration
of software applications" to the list of things fueled by semantic 
content management.

> Explaining the objectives of the SCMSC the key tenents of the Semantic
>Web are discussed. Such as, How will we recognize ¡¥well-defined
>meaning¡¦ ? , What is necessary for a better enabling of computers and
>people working in cooperation.

tenents -> tenets?

> Establishing SCMSC positioning against competing / complementary
>specifications key factors of the Semantic Spectrum will be referenced.
>Including, Data Models, Taxonomies, XML Schemas, Thesauri, Topic Maps,
>RDF and Ontologies.

I would shift "XML Schemas" one position to the left to precede "Taxonomies."

> Providing a background on their ability to focus on achievable
>deliverables the key features of the ebXMLRegistry are outlined.
>Especially those that are to be used as building blocks for managing
>semantic content within the ebXML Registry 4.0.
> Highlighting capabilities of integration and interoperability
>descriptions of Business Scenarios and Use cases are supplied.
>Particularly, the expected use of semantic content will be shown for
>web-based services for Tourism, e-Government, Utilities and


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