RE: [set] Review and Comments on initial draft Semantic Representations

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [set] Review and Comments on initial draft Semantic
Representations of the UN/CEFACT CCTS-based Electronic Business Document
From: "Prof. Dr. Asuman Dogac" <asuman@srdc.metu.edu.tr>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2009 4:05 am
To: Moberg Dale <dmoberg@axway.com>
Cc: set@lists.oasis-open.org

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 *≡ *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 Protégé, 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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

set message