[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Interest in Ontology Process Control Subcommittee
This sounds to me like more "best practices", if anything, than "registry standards". The information in your anecdote reminds me somewhat of a governance board-type function (citing term "process control"), if I am now understanding it correctly. Joe Zachary Alexander wrote: > > Joe, > > There is a lot of collateral technology required to support ontologies. > Some of these technologies are in their infant 1.0 stage and others are > proprietary. All are specific to the ontology community not the registry > community. > > I think that the standards should address how to open up the registry in > a logic system neutral manner without concentrating on how the ontology > developers will use it. I think that there should be the potential for a > clear separation of effort between registry developers and ontology > developers. Developers should not have to know both disciplines. > > Anecdote: I spent sometime talking with the Netscape LDAP directory > developers back in 1999 and I asked them how their directories were > being used. They said that they couldn't tell me definitively. They > said that LDAP developers kept coming up with new ways to use their > directories. I see the Ontology Process Control Subcommittee as a means > of facilitating the same kind of creativity. > > Zachary Alexander > The IT Investment Architect > ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325 > http://www.ebTDesign.com | http://www.p2peconomy.com | > http://www.itinvestmentvehicle.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:09 PM > To: Zachary Alexander > Cc: 'ebXML Regrep (ebXML Regrep)' > Subject: Re: [regrep] Interest in Ontology Process Control Subcommittee > > Zachary Alexander wrote: > > > > RegRep Team, > > > > Is there any interest in starting an Ontology Process Control > > Subcommittee? This subcommittee would develop registry standards for > > supporting process control ontology engineering. > > Could you perhaps elaborate as to exactly what such standards would > address? > > Thanks, > Joe > > > The effort would > > produce an ebXML Registry standard that will be ontology > representation > > neutral. Description Logics may not provide the most robust means of > > specifying processes. OWL DL is based on Description Logics. However, > > there are a number of logic systems (i.e., Modal Logic, Temporal > Logic, > > and Paraconsistent Logic). Use of one logic system versus another > could > > provide competitive advantage. This subcommittee would have as its > > charter the concept of Logic System Neutrality. > > > > Zachary Alexander > > The IT Investment Architect > > ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325 > > http://www.ebTDesign.com | http://www.p2peconomy.com | > > http://www.itinvestmentvehicle.com > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgr > oup.php. > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of > the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgr > oup.php. > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.