[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [s-ramp] SRAMP-3 RDF/OWL vs XML Schema
The issue is stated as: “Should we create an RDF/OWL based meta model view?”and the main arguments advanced that “This would provide a better way to leverage semantics to create new types of artifacts, etc., allow clients lacking full S-RAMP knowledge to get more value out of these documents. It would also provide an alternative description of the spec using RDF/OWL.” I have a couple of concerns: - I have no problem with people developing a separate ‘profile’ or implementation using OWL or RDF but we need to remain clear as to which format is the reference format and ‘core standard’ – and the format chosen should reflect our data model’s needs not the other way around (I explain further below); - I’m not convinced that the argument based on consistency with the OpenGroup SOA Ontology holds water: I’ve been through it superficially so can’t judge in detail but I know that it did receive a mauling at the hands of some people whose opinions I value in this area. I don’t think that S-RAMP should remain orthogonal to the SAO Ontology but it is too early to assess whether there is any value in establishing a relationship; - I’m not convinced either that a rendition in OWL provides for a better way to leverage semantics – there are too few real-world OWL tools, particularly in this domain, for this to be true – while a very large portion of SOA-based work can, for all its shortcomings, work with schema; - As regards the requirement to allow clients to gain more knowledge (presumably, and more correctly, ‘information’) from these assets, a standard and protocol exist already, SD-Share (‘Semantic Description Share’). It has been approved by the European Standards Agency, CEN, and is currently being considered by ISO (in ISO/IED JTC1- SC34): http://www.egovpt.org/fg/CWA_Part_1b. I would argue for re-use of existing tools I won’t go into more philosophical reservations about the merits of OWL as I think that debate is premature and possibly redundant. The focal point of the TC is to produce a common data model for SOA repositories and to a large extent that can and should be done initially without reference to any particular data modelling language: we need first to establish that the model is fit for purpose and then decide what representation best captures that, not the other way around! Best regards, Peter From: Linda Terlouw [mailto:linda.terlouw@icris.nl] Hi all, |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]