James Bryce Clark wrote Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:41:33 -0800: (01)
> Hi Mark. Thanks. Can you send pointers to this? Not immediately
> sure where the ontol. work is going on within the UBL superstructure of
> subcommittees, docs, etc. (02)
> Any takers on the question of OWL versus other methods? My W3C
> friends told me earlier this month that OWL's won the smackdown, but
> then, isn't it their baby? From other sources I have the sense it's
> still early in the horse race. (03)
> Also, pardon my ignorance, but what happened to the "catalog" work
> on a classification grid for ebXML components that was progressing in
> mid 2002 with help from Colin Clark, Bill McCarthy, Nita Sharma et al,
> using the Porter chain? Speaking as an old ebXML hack, it seemed to be
> excellent work. I can't tell if it was abandoned by CEFACT, or picked
> up and used in CCTS or somewhere else. It would be silly to lose, and
> then have to recreate, all that effort. Bill, you still out there? (04)
> Best regards to all & happy new year. This just might turn out to
> be the Year of Practical KM; let's make sure we're on it.
> Cheers Jamie (05)
> At 05:48 PM 12/31/2003, CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:
>
>> We may also want to have a look at the UBL Ontology work that is
>> underway. Perhaps what we need to do is get everyone together to
>> discuss this. LMI would be more than happy to host an extended
>> meeting of interested parties to explore this further.
>> Mark (06)
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jamie.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Wed 12/31/2003 4:55 PM
>> To: chiusano_joseph@xxxxxxx; Farrukh.Najmi@xxxxxxx;
>> regrep-cc-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dejenz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: dconnelly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; peter.yim@xxxxxxxx; mccarth4@xxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM => CCOWL (07)
>> For what it's worth this sounds like a great direction * * * (08)
>> 1. Has OWL become the consensus methodology? Has DAML+OIL
>> satisfactorily converged with it? Are topic maps out of the running?
>> RDF? I had the impression at XML2003 that there are still multiple
>> plausible parallel paths here. Obviously one high-level design issue
>> for ebXML is potential catholicity * * * (09)
>> 2. Have you followed the possible cognate work in
>> [ontolog-forum] (where I think at least Farrukh is a subscriber) or
>> OAGI's Semantic Integration Working Group? (010)
>> Warm regards and happy new year Jamie
>>
>> ~ James Bryce Clark
>> ~ Manager Tech Stds Dev, OASIS
>> ~ +1 978 667 5115 x 203 central office
>> ~ +1 310 293 6739 direct (011)
>> At 06:13 AM 12/31/2003, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>>
>>>> <Quote>
>>>> Indeed we could define a Technical Note binding CCTS to V3 RIM and
>>>> then map that work to a new Technical Note binding CCTS to OWL and
>>>> expecting that there will be a normative mapping of OWL within ebXML
>>>> Registry in version 4.
>>>> </Quote> (012)
>>> Great - sounds like a win-win. We'll continue the CCRIM Technical
>>> Note using V3 RIM, and place notations in the TN where we believe
>>> functionality will be covered by the OWL features in the future * * *
>>> Then we can update the CCRIM TN accordingly when the OWL work is
>>> ready. I'll keep appraised of the OWL work through my participation
>>> in the Semantic Content Management SC. (013)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (014)
|