Yunker, John wrote: (01)
>Let's say we have two semantic classes: "ConferenceGoer" and "BeverageDrinker".
>
>We can register both of these concepts, their type, and artifacts which
>describe their construction (such as an RDF expression). We can also declare
>a set of relationships and their type in the registry, so when I register
>"BeverageDrinker" I could also register its semantic association with
>"ConferenceGoer", so that someone navigating the registry could traverse both
>the semantic associations in the registry and retrieve the syntax specific
>expression.
>
+1 (02)
>
>Note that the ebXML registry specification does not pre-assign semantics to
>associations between entries or facts about entries, that is done as part of
>implementing a registry instance and its underlying model. [disclaimer: the
>mechanism for expressing that underlying model changed for v2.0 and I have not
>explored the new version to any great degree... although I assume they
>enhanced this capability in the new release :-) ]
>
V2 definitely improved the model in several areas although the core V1
model did not change drastically in V2. We are now nearing V3 and the
model has been extended further to handle several new features
(content-based event notification service, distributed registries,
content management services, XACML based fine-graned access control.....) (03)
The TC will likely approve V3 sometime in the next month or two. After
that we will become focused on V4 where I think the members of this
community can really help drive the requirements and features of V4 in
the direction of Ontology server capabilities. (04)
>
>Several of us on this discussion thread are meeting in San Diego for a
>UN/CEFACT meeting next week. We should try to get together with Duane and
>other interested parties to discuss.
>
I am unable to be there. Hope to catch up over email on the discussions
that take place. Have a good trip John. (05)
>
>John
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leo Obrst [mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:34 PM
>To: [ontolog-forum]
>Cc: duane@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Tools for the UBL Ontology Project
>
>Thanks, John. Yes, that's what I thought. So we can register these objects
>(find them, etc.), but when we register them, can we also register a tool that
>can interpret them? This could, for example, be a tool that CAN interpret the
>semantics represented by the
>ebXML-registered object. Also, of course, it could register their language of
>representation and then anyone could register their tool for that
>representation.
>
>Also, considering that an ontology these days really means both the
>generic/universal information (assertions about classes/concepts, depending on
>your terminology) and the instances of those classes (the "knowledge base",
>assertions about individuals, facts, possibly
>so-called "claims" which really are assertions about beliefs about facts,
>etc.), can we register all of these, and instances will be linked to classes?
>
>Another question: can we establish "links" between ontologies? Most ontologies
>these days are not monolithic but in fact may be distinct (created by separate
>developers, as we anticipate here) but still have defined logical relations
>between/among them. For example, OWL
>supports a logically based "imports" relation in which certain entailments
>hold between the imported and importing ontologies (or other constructs such
>as sameClassAs, sameIndividualAs). Can these relations between ontologies be
>handled?
>
>My guess is that all of the above can be registered, but would require a
>pointer to an interpreter of their semantics.
>
>Thanks,
>Leo
>
>"Yunker, John" wrote:
>
>
>
>>An ebXML registry can be extended using existing mechanisms to support
>resolving the types of navigation described by Leo. It does not however have
>these semantics in its core representation, which is what Duane refers to as
>"agnostic to the registry objects themselves".
>>
>>This extension would be a valuable exercise for making the ontology more
>generally accessible and useful. I would be interested in working on this
>effort.
>>
>>John
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Leo Obrst [mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 12:53 PM
>>To: [ontolog-forum]
>>Cc: duane@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Tools for the UBL Ontology Project
>>
>>Unfortunately, an ontology will not only be a taxonomy or set of taxonomies.
>>So the question I think still stands: can an ebXML Registry handle a graph
>>structure, i.e., a network? On the one hand, an ontology can be considered a
>>collection of assertions (axioms) and be represented as a list. But implicitly
>>or explicitly, it is a graph with multiple inheritance as opposed to a
>>taxonomy with single inheritance, which is a tree.
>>
>>One issue of course is that if you define a property for a class, will an
>>ebXML registry enable inheritance of that property down the subclass graph?
>>
>>An ontology is both the vocabulary plus the meaning of that vocabulary in
>>machine-interpretable form. Really therefore, it is a logical/conceptual model
>>on steroids.
>>
>>Now, if the ontology or ontologies are created in another tool (which can
>>handle the above) and then entered into an ebXML registry, then what services
>>can we expect from the registry?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Leo
>>
>>marion.royal@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I forwarded this thread to Duane Nickull, of XML Global because I consider
>>>him to be an expert on ebXML Reg/Rep. Here is his response and I am
>>>including him as a courtesy copy should anyone wish to reply/comment.
>>>
>>>Duane Nickull wrote:
>>>
>>>Yes please:
>>>
>>>The ebXML Registry could work as a Terminology servver since it is
>>>largely agnostic to the Registry Objects themselves. What would have to
>>>be studied is the classification trees, artifact structure (+ syntax)
>>>and specialized associations needed to facilitate setting an ebXML
>>>registry up as a terminology server.
>>>
>>>Some of this work has been started based on providing a semantic
>>>equivalency function between elements of disparate taxonomies by
>>>relating them to each other within certain contexts. This work involves
>>>taking the UN/CEFACT Core Components methodologies and deriving an XML
>>>syntax representation of both CC's and BIE's. Those artifacts are then
>>>referenced via an ebXML and a uni or bilateral reference is made between
>>>classes of equivalent objects.
>>>
>>>I support an open source project. It may be nice to tie in some of TB
>>>Lee's work on semantic Web.
>>>
>>>Duane
>>>
>>>marion.royal@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Duane
>>>>Would be happy to tie you into this thread if you would like to respond.
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------
>>>>Marion A. Royal
>>>>U.S. General Services Administration
>>>>202.208.4643 (Office)
>>>>202.302.4634 (Mobile)
>>>>
>>>>Sent from PDA - Please excuse fat thumbs.
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces
>>>> Sent: 03/04/2003 12:06 PM
>>>> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposal for UBL Ontology Project
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In a message dated 3/3/2003 10:58:11 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
>>>>farrukh.najmi@xxxxxxx writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A good way to do a virtual project is to do an open source project.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Fully agree this is the way to go.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I would like to propose that the proposed UBL ontologies be managed
>>>>>using ebXML Registry as an Ontology Server. There are many interesting
>>>>>features that an ebXML Registry has to offer as an ontology server. A
>>>>>partial list includes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is interesting as I have not thought of the ebXML registry as
>>>>an Ontology server. For example, I do not believe the RIM supports
>>>>the formal notion of 'subclassOf" which would be critical. While I
>>>>believe we could use a custom association with this label, that is
>>>>weaker than the notion of subclass being built into the RIM. For
>>>>
>>>>
>>>example,
>>>
>>>
>>>>a formal notion of subclass would allow the child information object to
>>>>automatically inherit the attributes of the parent. Please correct me
>>>>if I am misunderstanding the RIM or its implications.
>>>>
>>>>Additionally, I would recommend the Ontology classes be associated
>>>>with a terminology registry for each concept (in essence equating a
>>>>class with a concept). Following step 3, in the protege Ontology 101
>>>>document, we need to enumerate important terms in the Ontology.
>>>>I am proposing a step beyond enumeration to formal definition with
>>>>concept, terms and referents. Is the ebXML registry suitable for a
>>>>terminology
>>>>registry? Or do people know of others?
>>>>
>>>>- Mike
>>>>-------------------------------
>>>>Michael C. Daconta
>>>>Chief Scientist, Advanced Programs Group
>>>>McDonald Bradley, Inc.
>>>>www.daconta.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>--
>>>VP Strategic Relations,
>>>Technologies Evangelist
>>>XML Global Technologies
>>>****************************
>>>ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>_____________________________________________
>>Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
>>mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
>>Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
>>Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>
>>
>
>--
>_____________________________________________
>Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
>mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
>Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
>Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>_________________________________________________________________
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> (06)
--
Regards,
Farrukh (07)
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ (08)
|