[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog] UBL in the Press

To: ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "William E. McCarthy" <mccarth4@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 05:20:07 -0500
Message-id: <>
No matter how loud the marketing drumbeats get for UBL, there can be no 
disputing that it represents at its core a bottom-up  approach to 
developing a business process ontology.  You can generalize documents 
forever and still not unearth basic economic and business principles of 
economic exchanges.  Documents add unnecessary components (like details of 
manual reconciliations/bookkeeping and/or paper exchange).  Documents also 
hide components that should be analyzed and generalized (like 
implementation compromises of ideal models).  Additionally, I do not see 
how the state of affairs at a process or collaboration level can be tracked 
by seeing which document was sent last.    (01)

Harvesting existing knowledge (as UBL does) is a good partial 
approach.  However, until UBL attacks some of these conceptual issues from 
the top down, it will be an incomplete ontological effort, no matter what 
personalities or companies are behind it.    (02)

Bill McCarthy
Michigan State    (03)

  moy rAt 02:05 PM 1/18/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>As the UBL release is nearing, we are starting to see their story covered in
>trade press now.
>Take a look at the eWeek article:
>   Push for UBL Protocol Gathers Momentum
>   By Darryl K. Taft / January 13, 2003
>   http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,825911,00.asp
>To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
>at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog    (04)

Bill McCarthy
Michigan State University
http://www.msu.edu/user/mccarth4/    (05)

To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog    (06)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>