[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Interest in Ontology Process Control Subcommittee
Zachary, That is by design. The BPSS talks about logical documents that then have transaction instances. Notice that OASIS CAM provides a very slick way of implementing this - since the logical document can have a CAM template referenced. That CAM template can then build or process the actual transaction instance based on context - and so you could have several formats supported inside the CAM template and pick as needed. Similarly within the CPA / ebMS linkage - you can also do this too - either thru configuration in the ebMS - or using CAM as a payload service for ebMS (coming in V3.0 of ebMS). Hope that clarifies this. Thanks, DW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zachary Alexander" <zack2003@ebtdesign.com> To: "'ebXML Regrep (ebXML Regrep)'" <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:34 PM Subject: RE: [regrep] Interest in Ontology Process Control Subcommittee > Joe, > > Currently, the ebXML Family of standards handle XML content in a payload > neutral manner. Is that a design decision or is that a best practice? > Can a design decision or best practice that is codified in either a > defacto or normative manner be called a standard? > > 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:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:11 PM > To: Zachary Alexander > Cc: 'ebXML Regrep (ebXML Regrep)' > 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:chiusano_joseph@bah.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_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. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]