OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tm-pubsubj message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

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

Peter et al:

We are in early stages of the SCM SC life cycle. We have not had a
formal kickoff meeting where we will be getting team members on the same

In a nutshell we plan to build the Semantic Web Server standard
for distributed, collaborative development, management and usage of
semantic content (not just ebXML). I believe this includes supporting the
semantic registration of PSI's.

I welcome the thought that our work would be contribute to the goals of a
full Semantic Web (?) TC with a broader charter.

Formal participation to the SCM SC requires that you be an OASIS member
as well as a member of the ebXML Registry TC.


<quote who="Peter Brown">
> 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
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
Semantically Smart Compendiums

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]