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] Registry 8/8/2006: Profile for Web Ontology CommitteeDraft



>>> regarding: 2006-08-08      
>>> www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/download.php/19037/regrep-owl-profile-1.5-July4.pdfReference 
>>> Document
>>
>> mm1: Asuman, one question I had asked in a previous profile 
>> discussion was how from a profiling standpoint we may handle the 
>> iterative development of documents (be it a business process 
>> definition, WSDL, XML artifacts, or a set of discovery queries).  Not 
>> specific to your profile but in reviewing it, it lists a series of 
>> discovery queries in Section 6. Was it considered that there would 
>> possibly be basic and more advanced features considered so as to 
>> allow some flexibility for these registry capabilities? For example, 
>> I could see that even if discovery queries (or a subset) may be 
>> supported but a user interface is yet to be implemented or planned. 
>> In the specification of the profile, this is an RFC SHOULD requirement.
>> Overall and practically speaking, does this infer a need for 
>> different conformance levels in order to enable adoption and usage?
>
> dogac: You are right. Either there could be two conformance levels, or 
> we can change "SHOULD" to "MAY". 

mm2: This would represent a more substantive discussion around this 
profile and like should be vetted in the TC. I'd encourage us to 
consider this at some point, even if after the CD vote is concluded.

>> Secondly, and unrelated, several of the features described in Section 
>> 4 (transitiveness, equivalency etc) are outlined. However, I've seen 
>> in the world of formalisms - set theory, process matching, 
>> pi-calculus, etc - there is an element of proof here that is needed 
>> and/or required. Do we assume these mechanisms operate in the 
>> background? Should there be a mention of that if true?
>
> OWL is a formal language for reasoning based on Description Logics.
> ebXML RIM does not have a formalism; however it uses relational databases
> underneath so we may say that it has the formalism of relational 
> databases
> which is for querying (set theory, relational algebra and calculus).
> Since the formalisms do not match, we take an engineering approach.
> I hope this clarifies. 

mm2: Perhaps a comment regarding this would be a reasonable addition to 
the draft (editorial in nature). Thanks Asuman for the swift response.



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