Comments on submitted requirements presentations.

Hi SET TC,

1. A public chat room that can be started easily and allows for note taking for TCs is found at

http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/set

[ the room is dynamically created from the value in the path following “room” ]

It is a convenient way to exchange URLs to others in the group for web accessible information relevant to a discussion.

2. Is there a web browser page that allows access to the presentations that are made? I worked from home on the last call but still NAT seemed to prevent access. I tinkered with some ports but had no success. Tomorrow I must be at work during the call and there is a nasty HTTP proxy and few, if any, ways to open up TCP or UDP ports.

If time does not permit, perhaps responses could be posted to this mailing list regarding the questions posed in the comments.

Thanks

Dale Moberg

ENEA experience in message

based interoperability

Tools for semi-automatic mapping and support to

its documentation

X-Lab has setup a tool to automatically generate a UBL 2.0 ontology

to semantically describes processes, activities and UBL documents in

terms of structural components and their relationships

Open issue: a well accepted language to define

mappings and related rules.

The stated issue is unclear to me: Are the mappings of interest between two variants of UBL documents, such as a document A1 in UBL-SBS and A2 in UBL-NES? Or between UBL documents and, say, OAGIS BODs or GS1 XML?

I am aware of limited standards applicable to the topic of business document translation. One OMG initiative is QVT; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QVT which begins:

Model transformation is the process of converting a model Ma conforming to metamodel MMa into a model Mb conforming to metamodel MMb. If MMa=MMb, then the transformation is endogenous, otherwise it is an exogenous transformation. Model transformation is a critical component of model-driven architectures (MDA). Recognizing this, a Request for proposal (RFP) has been issued by OMG on MOF Query/View/Transformation to seek a standard compatible with the MDA recommendation suite (UML, MOF, OCL, etc.).

But should a business document be thought of as a M1 level model? Would the M2 level be an xsd schema, for example?

OCL might be compatible with “description logic” semantics such as those expressed in flavors of OWL.

But CCTS and CCMA contain various UML/MOF style M2 models of documents also.

I know the convener has expressed a preference for technologies, but some philosophical preliminaries might help some of us contribute. I can see the value of formulating constraints that translations from one BIE to another should satisfy. I am not certain that those constraints would result in a constructive procedure producing a translation, which is probably part of what the “map” requirement involves. I think the the constructive procedure sense of map is what would have the most value to ETL and similar tooling used currently in business collaboration software environments.

In general, both OMG and W3C (and probably others) are producing standards relevant to SET. I think I need to see how our deliverables differ, enhance, or otherwise relate to what currently is available. (The Wiki has a list of mainly Eclipse style tools implementing portions of QVT, for example).

</Comment>

A Proposal for SET TC Requirements

The semantics to be defined should serve the

intended purpose

– Not any semantics the document component may

have but the minimum amount of semantics aimed to

facilitate the discovery, reuse and translation

● The extracted semantics should be expressable in any

ontology language

● But the ontology language should be OWL since there is a

lot of tools that can be used

I like the idea of relating the knowledge (semantics) to be represented in terms of the basic computational tasks that we are intending to support.

Discovery is constrained, in part, by the search query (contrast google key word search versus UDDI tmodel search) as well as the problem situation.

The dominant way for collaboration communities to find out what they need is by asking others what they use or can support or want to work on in an industry standardization effort!

I think we should put discovery at a lower priority in our work.

Reuse: what are the things that are to be reused? What business or collaboration usages or tasks are relevant? Need a little more expansion here to understand how reuse is useful as a constraint on the alternative approaches to semantics.

Translation: Are we trying to create a library of reusable maps? Or of generators of maps? Or map checkers/testers/validaters? Etc. Again, the translation task needs analytical refinements to more specialized subtasks to provide useful constraints IMO.

</Comment>

How Semantic Interoperability using OASIS SET TC will improve Collaboration of eGovernment Applications

Why (semantic) interoperability is an issue

But: G2C, G2I, G2B (and vice versa) and G2G on different federal levels

Different federal levels

Country

Federal State

Community

other countries, other hierarchy levels

Lots of different systems

Lots of interfaces

Lots of entities which are “similar” but not the same

Is interoperability as a problem here an “optimization” problem of a “satisficing” (good enough for government work, as we say in the US sometimes) problem in your view?

</Comment>

HUT SoBerIT Requirements Proposals OASIS SET TC

Different wellbeing service providers and systems

How to achieve semantic interoperability between wellbeing service providers?

Collaboration between wellbeing service providers and citizens

How to map concepts and semantics between professionals and citizens?

How to use citizen created vocabularies ("folksonomies") for citizens and professionals

I think that folksonomies is an interesting kind of theoretical area. I am wondering whether that sort of cognitive/ natural language interface area is the place to start, however.

Even with the somewhat “technical” and circumscribed language of business transaction request and response used in EDI and automated business interactions, we are still at the edge of what “might be” ready for standardization! I really think we need to remember that a standards effort aiming at some engineering utility needs to be well out of the research academic environment and ready for the lower level textbooks.

</Comment>

Providing Semantic Support for CCTS Context Domains

What standard to use for OHW LifeManager document repository?

How to support dual model?

How to manage different ontologies?

Providing Semantic Support for Customization of Core Components and Business Document Schemas

Document Schemas for LifeManager documents, Business Documents for citizens and professionals

Providing Semantic Support for Document Translation

Translations: B2C, C2B, B2B, B2C2B

Interesting but I hope we can try to get a solid technical basis going first and then go for these more elusive areas.

</Comment>

SET TC Initial Presentation

Providing Semantic Support for CCTS Context Domains

Providing Semantic Support for Customization of Core Components and Business Document Schemas

Providing Semantic Support for Document Translation

Is Reuse as mentioned earlier connected in your view with Customization?

Context Domains: I see that there might be a combinatorial issue:

q 65,610,000,000,000,000,000

q Sixty five quintillion, six hundred ten quadrillion (US)

q Sixty five trillion, six hundred ten billiard (UK?)

( 300 mutually exclusive codes for each of the eight categories (300^8.)??

However, I hope that we are not posing the problem in such a way that we have to iterate over each possible permutation. In terms of problem solving tasks, what problem(s) involving CCTS context domains needs semantic support, and how will that representation of semantic knowledge help solve the problem(s).

Last support issue also needs explication.

</Comment>

A Requirements Proposal

There are also variations in context scheme (CCTS, UCM,etc)

D1. Namespaces (may vary or may be the same)

D2. Models

D3. Core Components

D4. Core Components Harmonization Group (private, TBG17,organization, etc)

D5. Underlying syntax (XML, ASN.1, EDI, etc)

D6. Variations in basic datatypes (and codelists)

D7. Naming and Design Rules (UBL, ATG2, etc)

D8. Context / Purpose (D8.1, D8.2, etc)

D9. Context Scheme

Concern with OWL supporting knowledge base maintenance (dolphin fish gill example)

I like this inventory of the source of variabilities, and it helps me get closer to thinking in terms of encoders and decoders, automagically produced. However,

Could you explain what a harmonization group’s goals and results look like a bit more? How does it impact producing Models, for example? How does it relate to variations in D7? or D6? Isn’t harmonization just some approach to relating variations along the other dimensions? If not, (and I suspect it is not the same but I have not been on such a group), can you clarify?

I think your points about OWL and versioning and inconsistencies is OK but I cannot imagine any formalism that could avoid such problems unless it disallowed negation in any form... I am less worried about the formalism than about the kind of knowledge that is to be put into it.

For example, are semantic constraints ones that ensure the values of data exchanged are understood by computational processes of either party in the “correct way” to ensure proper business interaction (so that a “container” of a product is not understood to be a bottle on one side, and a ocean going shipping steel box on the other). Or is our semantic model an ontology of the “document,” understood as a bunch of aggregated BCCs and ASBIEs etc? How do we decide which kind of semantics is needed for translational fidelity? Or do we have reasons why following the constraints in terms of composition our of BCCs and so forth must also promote correct business interaction?

</Comment>

set message