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
>
>-ppy
>
>--
>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
517-432-2913
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)
|