Subject: Re: [set] Comments on submitted requirements presentations.
Hi Dale, We had already established such a room and informed the SET TC. This mail is available at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/set/email/archives/200807/msg00019.html Please note that the conference chat room URL is: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/settc_20080814 Best regards, Asuman Moberg Dale wrote: > > 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. > > <Comment> > > 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 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-driven_architecture> (MDA). > Recognizing this, a Request for proposal (RFP) has been issued by OMG > on MOF <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 > > <Comment> > > 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 > > <Comment> > > 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 > > <Comment> > > 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 > > <Comment> > > 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 > > <Comment> > > 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) > > <Comment> > > 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> > -- ____________________________________________________________________________ Professor Asuman Dogac email: firstname.lastname@example.org WWW: http://www.srdc.metu.edu.tr/~asuman/ Director Phone: +90 (312) 210 5598, or Software R&D Center +90 (312) 210 2076 Department of Computer Eng. Fax: +90 (312) 210 5572 Middle East Technical University +90 (312) 210 1259 06531 Ankara Turkey skype: adogac