[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM => CCOWL

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:08:02 -0800
Message-id: <3FF47012.9060808@xxxxxxxx>
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/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (014)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>