[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [set] Review and Comments on initial draft Semantic Representationsof the UN/CEFACT CCTS-based Electronic Business Document
Dear Dale, Many thanks for your valuable comments. We will work on them and will share our thoughts with you. Best regards, Asuman Moberg Dale wrote: > > > *Review and Comments * > > > *Semantic Representations of the UN/CEFACT CCTS-based Electronic > Business Document * > > > *Review* > > GS1, UBL, and OAGIS documents will all eventually be semantically > harmonized with the CCTS information model and with the CC Library. > Harmonization means that document structure will be mapped into CCTS > information model patterns and that semantic primitives for messages > will be found in the CC Library. > > SET has proposed an ¡°upper ontology¡± of OWL DL assertions, with > content taken from the CCTS model of business information. The upper > ontology is combined with additional assertions describing information > structures from messages that are defined by the message standards > bodies (GS1, UBL, and OAGIS). > > The ontologies are combined and ¡°classified¡± to produce a completed > set of asserted and inferred OWL claims, containing many class > equivalences. These equivalences form the basis for maps between > information elements within the overall documents. The resulting maps > are not normally complete, and ¡°heuristic¡± rules are used to derive > additional class equivalences until all ¡°corresponding¡± parts of > documents are connected. (For a given pair of documents, it may still > be that some parts in either document have no parts in the other; each > document may, for example, make use of some semantic primitives not > found in the other. > > > *Comments & Questions.* > > Given that GS1, UBL and OAGIS are seeking to harmonize against the CC > Library, there should be a number of correlations based not on the > CCTS models, but on the low level maps of document parts to core > components. David Webber leveraged these ¡°couplets¡± to discover > equivalences through the UID dictionary cross-references which he then > adds to his transforms or CAM templates. In the METU approach, UBL > CityName.Name correlates with CCL CityName.Text which correlates with > GS1 city.Text. These correlations are derived using an additional > equivalence, 54.Name.Type *¡Ô *Text.Type that allows some surface > conventions to be abstracted away. My question is whether the need for > such rules might be diminished by using a more direct correlation > stemming from the UIDs being equal? > > More generally, the framework provided in the current draft seems to > combine a very constrained DL approach to knowledge representation and > inference, with several escape mechanisms to maneuver around various > obstacles tied to both the ontology¡¯s limited content (insufficient to > derive various needed equivalences) and the inference engines > constraints on inferences. > > The need for Jess based augmentation of inferences^^[i] <#_edn1> and > special rules that have sufficient content to derive additional > equivalences seems to be ¡°a patch¡± for something that points to an > inadequacy in the CCTS model, the CC Libraries (which may not be > adequately leveraged), or perhaps in the constraints on inference > rules. Maybe what we are seeing is that there is a need for a richer > ontology in CCTS? > > Or more information in the CC library? > > If we are to add more general rules and inferences to overcome OWL > limitations, I think SWRL could be considered as at least connected to > the OWL technology in some ways. In addition, the Pellet reasoner is > said to support SWRL reasoning, so that demonstrations could still be > run within Prot¨¦g¨¦, if that is the preferred development environment. > SWLR can be stored in an OWL file, apparently, and then the additional > equivalences would come out of OWL syntax and DL reasoners with > greater inferential powers. > > However, the fact that these additional rules have not come from an > analysis of the content of the CCTS models, the specifics about GS1 or > UBL or OAGIS information structures, or the CC library suggests that > the project falls short as a proof of concept for UN/CEFACT > technologies in producing maps. > > At the very least, the precise details need to be captured with more > care about just what can be derived (without the heuristic patches) > and what those equivalences or inclusions can accomplish with respect > to generating maps between documents. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ^^[i] <#_ednref1> ¡°Note that a DL reasoner by itself cannot process > predicate logic rules and we resort to a well > > accepted practice of using a rule engine to execute the more generic > rules and carry the results > > back to the DL reasoner through wrappers developed. ¡° > -- ____________________________________________________________________________ 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]