[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@xxxxxxx>
Cc: dejenz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: chiusano_joseph@xxxxxxx
Cc: Farrukh.Najmi@xxxxxxx
Cc: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: jon.bosak@xxxxxxx
Cc: dconnelly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: regrep-cc-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 11:06:28 -0800
Message-id: <3FF46FB4.7050201@xxxxxxxx>
 > Perhaps what we need to do is get everyone together to discuss
 > this.  ...    (01)

Good idea, Mark!  -ppy    (02)

All,    (03)

Happy New Year, everyone!    (04)

I am copying this thread to the [ontolog-forum] so others could jump 
in too. (Please continue to include <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
in the routing.)    (05)

The adopted approach to making our first attempt on a ubl-ontology is 
to do it in SUO-KIF, and extend that from SUMO.    (06)

Obviously, a lot of discussion had gone in before the [ontolog-forum] 
community adopted the above approach. For more details, you are 
welcomed to browse through the wiki and forum archives, starting from, 
say: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UblOntology    (07)

PPY    (08)

Peter P. Yim
[ontolog-forum], co-convener
--    (09)

CRAWFORD, Mark wrote Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:48:33 -0500:    (010)

> 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
---    (011)

>       -----Original Message----- 
>       From: James Bryce Clark [mailto: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; 
>       Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM => CCOWL    (012)

>            For what it's worth this sounds like a great direction from my 
>       perspective.  We are seeing many signs of early experiments in applying 
>       serious KM power tools to e-business artifacts.  Some inquiries:     (013)

>            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 
>       issue for ebXML is potential catholicity among tools and 
>       specifications.  Putting it differently, is "choosing" OWL a 
>       compatibility or vendor-alignment issue? 
>            If you go down this path, I've also had chats with other semantic 
>       methods experts that might be worth pinging.     (014)

>            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?     (015)

>            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     (016)

>       At 06:13 AM 12/31/2003, Chiusano Joseph wrote: 
>       ><Quote> 
>       >Indeed we could define a  Technical Note binding CCTS to V3 RIM and 
>       >map that work to a new Technical Note binding CCTS to OWL and 
>       >that there will be a normative mapping of OWL within ebXML Registry in 
>       >version 4. 
>       ></Quote>     (017)

>       >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 
>       >I'll keep appraised of the OWL work through my participation in the 
>       >Semantic Content Management SC.     (018)

>       >Happy New Year, 
>       >Joe     (019)

>       >Farrukh Najmi wrote: 
>       >>Chiusano Joseph wrote: 
>       >>>Farrukh, 
>       >>>I think CCOWL is a great idea. I'm also thinking that we can have 
>       >>>best of both worlds here - that is, we don't need to halt our 
>       >>>CCRIM work in order to pursue incorporation of semantic 
>       >>>The reason I say this is that my understanding is that OWL would 
>       >>>to the assembly functionality in the CCTS spec, which is out of 
>scope of 
>       >>>the CCRIM effort anyway. Basic registration and maintenance of Core 
>       >>>Components and their associated entities in the registry would be 
>       >>>covered by the base registry functionality for handling 
>       >>>Does that sound good?     (020)

>       >>Joe, 
>       >>Incremental progress is always a good idea IMO. 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. 
>       >>I do want to emphasize though that OWL is not just applicable for 
>       >>assembly but also for expression of CCTS in XML. In fact as I look at 
>       >>some of the issues you  identified in expressing CCTS in RIM (for 
>       >>the Slot limitations), I notice that in an OWL expression, those 
>       >>limitations simply go away. For example, RIM when expressed in OWL do 
>       >>even need to have the notion of a Slot class since OWL has an 
>       >>ability to express slots or dynamic attributes. * * *     (021)

>       To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
>of the OASIS TC), go to 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php.    (022)

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    (023)

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