> 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)
Regards,
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;
>mccarth4@xxxxxxx
> 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
>design
> issue for ebXML is potential catholicity among tools and
> specifications. Putting it differently, is "choosing" OWL a
>significant
> 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
>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> (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
>ready.
> >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
>the
> >>>best of both worlds here - that is, we don't need to halt our
>current
> >>>CCRIM work in order to pursue incorporation of semantic
>technologies.
> >>>The reason I say this is that my understanding is that OWL would
>apply
> >>>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
>RegistryObjects.
> >>>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
>example
> >>the Slot limitations), I notice that in an OWL expression, those
> >>limitations simply go away. For example, RIM when expressed in OWL do
>not
> >>even need to have the notion of a Slot class since OWL has an
>inherent
> >>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/
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 (023)
|