Re: [tm-pubsubj] Range of Application

["Peter Brown" <peter@justbrown.net>]

Carl:

I don't want to be picky, just to get the picture clear.

Is the SemConMan SC an actual TC sub-committee or just a "working group" of the ebXML Registry TC? It is simply not on the radar anywhere. I ask because this could be a valid case for bringing it up to a full TC: they will be those (myself included) who would be interested in SemConMan, but not 'just' the ebXML registry TC.

In this circulstance, there would be valuable cross-over with the broader TM-PubSubj objectives

 

Peter

----- Original Message -----

From: Carl Mattocks

To: Patrick Durusau

Cc: Peter Brown ; carlmattocks@checkmi.com ; Bernard Vatant ; tm-pubsubj

Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:15 AM

Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Range of Application

<quote who="Patrick Durusau">
> Peter,
>
> Peter Brown wrote:
>> Hi Carl, Hi Bernard....
>>
>> <quote who="Carl Mattocks">
>>  >Acknowledged - the link is for OASIS members.
>>  >
>>  >Below is an extract from the charter.
>>  ><charter-extract>
>>  >The Semantic Content Management SC was established by the OASIS
>> ebXML...
>> </quote>
>> Unfortunately, the link is even for the TC administrator only, not even
>> OASIS members...
>> BTW: the OASIS members area doesn't show *any* reference at all
>> to SemConManSC of the ebXML Registry....???

We have requested that web access will be made easier via a link from
OASIS list of TC's

>> I would be interested in more detail, particularly as there is always
>> the danger of "scope creep": although there are plenty of things that do
>> need to be done, "our" TC is about Published Subjects, not about
>> semantic interoperability through public registration of ontologies and
>> ontological constructs...The SCMSC sounds closer to the "SeeBIG" TC
>> idea....
>>
> Was not trying to suggest "scope creep", just an observation that
> Published Subjects could be used by a number of different technologies.
>

Agreed - the members of the SCMSC would probably encourage to facilitate
semantic interoperability through public registration of ontologies and
ontological constructs.




>>
>> <quote who="Patrick Durusau">
>>  >
>>  > What I am thinking is that the definitions should be as generic to
>> the
>>  > general concept of PSIs as possible so as to allow for future
>>  > deliverables to address the needs to topic maps and other
>> technologies
>>  > (or the development of deliverables by other communities for their
>> own
>>  > purposes).
>> </quote>.
>> Is this not the tail wagging the dog? Surely business drivers will lead
>> to definition of general concepts and requirements, and *then* such
>> generic definitions can be "narrowed" to specific TM implementations...?
>>
>
> No because no matter how urgent a business driver may be, it cannot
> supply the intellectual content that underlies the general concepts and
> terminology. Such drivers may well influence how soon such concepts and
> terminology are narrowed for specfic cases but that is a different issue.
>
> We may well be talking about the same thing in slightly different ways.
> What I think is important is that the concepts and terminology be
> specific enough to be useful but not limited to a particular set of
> uses. Able to be driven to narrower cases by more specific business
> drivers if you like.
>

Acknowledged - I do consider that PSI's have the potential to add value
many forms of semantic structures.




--
Carl Mattocks

co-Chair OASIS ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
CEO CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart Compendiums
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi