[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] linkage between schemas, ontologies, taxonomies and data dictionaries,
John, Good questions - the path forward we have engineered in CAM is: #1 - Structure section A Transaction structure - eg OAG BOD, some XML, UBL, et al. #2 - Conference reference section Points to registry, and Associates UDEF IDs to each element / attribute in #1 note: element tag names can be any - UDEF ID establishes what the actual field (aka noun) is. #3 - Registry contains nouns in XML instances - referencable by UDEF ID - that contain the semantics of the elements (eg - allowed values, format, length, datatype, etc.). #4 - XML to capture the taxonomy of the noun dictionary - this Ron showed diagrams for in the ebXMLForum.com article - each of these diagrams can be modelled in VisualScript and then XML generated automatically from those - right now that XML is looking like OWL that the Registry SCM is currently working on defining. DW. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com> To: "ebXML Regrep (ebXML Regrep)" <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>; "john hardin" <john@sanghainteractive.com> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 12:05 PM Subject: [regrep] linkage between schemas, ontologies, taxonomies and data dictionaries, > Forwarded as per John Hardin's request > > -------- Original Message -------- > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:32:48 -0500 > From: john hardin <john@sanghainteractive.com> > To: dnickull@adobe.com, David RR Webber <david@drrw.info>, Dale Moberg > <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, jturpin@cyclonecommerce.com, > ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com, golsen@contivo.com, Farrukh.Najmi@sun.com, > carlmattocks@checkmi.com, ewallace@cme.nist.gov, > jspeed@cyclonecommerce.com, gshevchik@cyclonecommerce.com, > rkhanna@cyclonecommerce.com, mattm@adobe.com > CC: udef.builders@topica.com > > > > Carl and all on the reg/rep group: > > I'm not sure I've got the ability to post to the OASIS group that > originated this list, Duane, can you post this to the right groups for me, > and copy me so that I can capture these email address for the groups (then > get more deeply involved)? THANKS > > One of the classic uses that we have planned for in the UDEF groups is the > "linkage" between schemas, ontologies, taxonomies and data dictionaries, > what have you. For example, the data element concept > "purchase.order.document_date" where "purchase.order.document" is the > object (document) with qualifiers ( of type 'purchase order') and where > "date" is the property of the document, is represented in the UDEF > semi-intelligent ID format as d.t.2_8 or "purchase.order.document_date". > > So taking this and placing it in the schemas or RDFs etc, as an attribute > of the data element concept that is used in that format to specify the > purchase order document date, will provide a linkage between all the docs > that have that data element concept. And as you are probably well aware, > every PO has the data element concept of PO Date, but very few, if any of > the formats call this data element by the same name. So the attribute can > be resolved to provide the exact semantic meaning of the data element. > There are two example XML instance docs on the home page of the UDEF web > site (http://www.udef.org) one is OAGIS and the other is xCBL > (commerceone). The UDEF IDs are really improperly placed in the actual > instance docs, only for demonstration purposes. We think that this really > belongs in the reference doc (ie: schema, RDF, etc). > > In my mind, this is very useful information to have in some form or fashion > within the reg/rep, due to the fact that the reg/rep holds integration > artifact info, and this most certainly qualifies as that. I still don't > have any opinion on how or where it should be stored in the reg/rep... Can > we perhaps start on some conversations? > > thanks > john > > PS - there is an upcoming NIST / OAGi / UDEF Proof of Concept. See > http://lists.topica.com/lists/udef.builders/read/message.html?mid=808601884&sort=d&start=142 > I would also like to include CAM assembly paradigms and mechanisms in this > if we can.... > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > john c hardin > director / founder - sangha interactive > 877.572.5691 - 313.737.1197 cell > john@sanghainteractive.com > http://www.sanghainteractive.com > > see these for more info: > http://www.udef.org > http://www.topica.com/lists/udef.builders/read/ > http://www.geocities.com/johnchardin/ > > > > Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] re: Will a Universal Data Element Framework > [UDEF] Class of Applications fit within the ebXML Semantic Registry ? > * From: "Carl Mattocks" > * To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov > * Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:33:50 -0500 (EST) > > ---------- > > This is interesting. I want to now more.. > > Zach: > > Please expand on the notion of 'UDEF semantic identifiers'. > > Evan: > > Please elaborate on 'lattices of these relationships '. > > Everyone : > > Please consider if the Semantic Web could leverage "concepts ... denoted > by the paths from these nodes to the root rather than the node itself" > > > thanks much > carl > > > > Zachary Alexander wrote: > > > >>Will a UDEF (Universal Data Element Framework) Class of application fit > >>within the ebXML Semantic Registry model? How would a Semantic Aware > >>ebXML Registry support UDEF? The UDEF is an international, > >>cross-industry standards effort that is developing Object and Property > >>word trees that can be combined to construct semantic identifiers. > >> > >>[1] http://www.udef.org > > > > I expected UDEF to come up in this group sooner or later. IMHO it is > > out of scope for this group because the trees it uses for encoding > > things are not quite taxonomies. (They are not taxonomies because the > > parent-child relationships for nodes in the tree are not always > > subsumption and because concepts are actually denoted by the paths > > from these nodes to the root rather than the node itself). This puts > > UDEF to the left of taxonomy on Leo's chart, out of the area that > > could be described as Ontology or Semantic Model. > > > > The UDEF Object tree also provides a good example of the problems of > > trying to encode a large array of divergent concepts into a simple > > single tree. Some notable results are: different interpretation of > > parent-child relationships even at a single parent; and multiple > > occurences of the same word at different levels and in different > > branches. This makes identification of a concept difficult and keyword > > searches for a concept not very interesting. The former result points > > the need for multiple kinds of relationships in conceptual models, > > while the latter result points to the need to support lattices of these > > relationships. > > > > -Evan > > > > > > > -- > Carl Mattocks > > co-Chair OASIS ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC > CEO CHECKMi > v/f (usa) 908 322 8715 > www.CHECKMi.com > Semantically Smart Compendiums > (AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi > > > > > > > -- > Senior Standards Strategist > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://www.adobe.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_workgroup.php. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]