[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,
I want to show you guys the demo I did for the GoC. I think I can get permission to share it but the data element XML serialization we made supports UDEF UUID's and ebXML Registry. You could substitutee out lightweight Assembly stuff for CAM and the demo is done. D David RR Webber wrote: >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. > > >> >> > > > -- Senior Standards Strategist Adobe Systems, Inc. http://www.adobe.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]