[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
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: asuman@srdc.metu.edu.tr
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]