All, (01)
I concur with Nenad's suggested title. I believe it captures the
fundamental requirement for semantics integration. (02)
I also encourage this group to read the article recently published on
ebXML Forum -- http://www.ebxmlforum.org/articles/ebFor_20040306.html
The article highlights a candidate ontology for the e-business "payload"
standards community that needs to be considered. (03)
Ron Schuldt
Senior Staff Systems Architect
Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
#F521 Mail Point DC5694
Littleton, CO 80127
303-977-1414
ron.l.schuldt@xxxxxxxx (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nenad Ivezic
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 6:24 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Cc: 'Mike Rowell'; 'Mark Palmer'; nist-sis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
nanicic@xxxxxxxx; 'David Connelly (OAGi)'; serm@xxxxxxxx;
garret.minakawa@xxxxxxxxxx; evan.wallace@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Re: Modeling/formalizing representation of
Core Component Types (05)
Hi Peter: (06)
I am copying on this message potentially interested parties at NIST and
OAG to consider participating in this new effort. I suggest this title (07)
An Ontological Basis for ebXML Core Component Types (08)
As we discussed, a wide range of participation, particularly from the
standards community that implemented the core component types would be
very critical. (09)
Thanks, (010)
- Nenad (011)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:46 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Modeling/formalizing representation of
Core Component Types (012)
Thanks to Pat Cassidy, Kurt Conrad, Nenad Ivezic, Tim McGrath, Bo
Newman, Adam Pease & Peter Yim who participated (and to Mark Crawford,
Monica Martin & Sue Probert who sent in their regrets - believe
they're all in Bonn now at the UN/CEFACT face-to-face meeting), we had
a most productive conference call, that lasted a little over 2 hours. (013)
The proceedings is captured on at meeting wiki page at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2004_03_11_CCT (014)
We all agreed that there is good potential for using ontological
engineering methodologies to make a contribution here. Those at the
call decided to start a task force and a mini project to look further
into the matter. We will try to engage representatives from multiple
standards body that are involved, and will aim at producing a report
(over the next 3 months) on findings and recommendations on the
modeling/formalizing representation of the ebXML Core Component Types. (015)
All: please continue the discourse on this thread. I'll be setting up
a project page on the wiki for this (shortly) too. (016)
Thanks & regards. -ppy
-- (017)
Peter Yim wrote Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:04:55 -0800: (018)
> The subject is now confirmed.
>
> Time of call is: slot (d) Thu 11-Mar-2004 4:00pm California time.
Assume
> approx 1.5~2.0 hours.
>
<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=11&month=3&yea
r=2004&hour=16&min=0&sec=0&p1=224
>
> >
>
> Please refer to the following wiki page to get ready for the call (the (019)
> same page will be used during the call too):
>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2004_03_11_CCT
>
> RSVP if you have not already done so.
>
> Regards. -ppy
> --
>
> Peter Yim wrote Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:52:57 -0800:
>
>> Based on the responses received, we are NOT going to have this call
>> tomorrow -- i.e. time slot (a): Thu 04-Mar-2004 3:00pm California
time.
>>
>> Let's aim at doing it at time slot (d) Thu 11-Mar-2004 4:00pm
>> California time. Assume approx 1.5~2.0 hours for the call. I'd still
>> need responses from those who will be joining us (at this time slot.) (020)
>> I'll re-confirm once I've received enough responses.
>>
>> Thanks. -ppy
>> --
>>
>> Peter Yim wrote Wed, 03 Mar 2004 06:24:47 -0800:
>>
>>> Thank you, Pat, Sue and Tim for the quick response.
>>>
>>> Tim helped narrow it down to two immediate option. I'd personally
>>> prefer (a), but then (because of the immediacy) we would need to
>>> determine very quickly on whether or not that is viable. If we can't (021)
>>> make (a), I'd still hope we do it on (d).
>>>
>>> >> (a) Thu 04-Mar-2004 3:00pm California time (which would be 11 pm
in
>>> >> London; 7 am in West Australia, and 6 pm in New Jersey)
>>> >>
>>>
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=4&month=3&year=
2004&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=224
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> (d) Thu 11-Mar-2004 4:00pm California time
>>> >>
>>>
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=11&month=3&year
=2004&hour=16&min=0&sec=0&p1=224
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be wonderful if we can hear from Adam, Kurt, Bill, Monica,
>>> Cecelia, Bo, Leo, (I would have included Monica and Bob too, but I
>>> know they are both out of the country) and anyone else who plan to
>>> participate, if you could make it to (a), if we do it then; and,
>>> would time slot (d) be ok with you.
>>>
>>> URGENT: I'd need to hear back within the next 7 hours (from the time (022)
>>> of this message), and if (a) is viable, I'll make the conference
call
>>> reservations, and inform everyone within an hour of that closing
time.
>>>
>>> Thanks. -ppy
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim McGrath wrote Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:33:05 +0800:
>>>
>>>> not surprisingly i prefer option (d) - next friday morning to me.
>>>> but option (a) is OK if that is too far away.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>> Sue Probert wrote Wed, 3 Mar 2004 00:08:06 -0000:
>>> > Hi Peter
>>> >
>>> > I am sorry but I cannot make any calls until mid March at the
very
>>> > earliest due to meeting commitments etc.
>>> >
>>> > regards
>>> >
>>> > Sue
>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>> Patrick Cassidy wrote Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:06:59 -0500:
>>>
>>> > Peter --
>>> > I can participate in any of those time slots.
>>> >
>>> > Pat
>>> > ----------------
>>>
>>>
>>>> Peter Yim wrote Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:22:59 -0800:
>>>>
>>>>> Sue & Tim,
>>>>>
>>>>> Further to our discussion at the ubl-lcsc call this morning and
>>>>> earlier exchanges on the forum (ref.
>>>>>
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum//cgi-bin/namazu.cgi?query=%2Bsubject%3Amod
eling+core+component+types&submit=Search%21&idxname=ontolog-forum&max=10
&result=normal&sort=date%3Alate),
>>>>> I'd liked to schedule a conference call where either or both of
you
>>>>> (in the same or a different session) bring those of us working on
>>>>> the ubl-ontology project, up to speed by providing context, status (023)
>>>>> and semantics for Core Component Types -- as a necessary step
>>>>> towards our developing an ontology on the CCT's other CC's and
>>>>> eventually UBL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our first preference, in terms of timing, would be during our
>>>>> regular Thursday [ontolog] conference calls which starts 10:30am
>>>>> California time. (Tim did, and rightfully so, indicated that this
>>>>> is obviously not a good time for someone in West Australia,
because
>>>>> that is 2:30am there.)
>>>>>
>>>>> This is important enough that I, for one, am open to all options.
I
>>>>> would hope to see this happen sooner, rather than later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, to get the ball rolling, let me start by suggesting a
>>>>> few time slots. Then will each of you, Sue and Tim, as well as
>>>>> interested members of the ubl-ontology team and the ontolog
>>>>> community, come back and indicate, which (hopefully all) of those
>>>>> slots would work for you. If none would, please give us 2 or 3
>>>>> slots in return, so that we can start over. Here goes (although
>>>>> given our geographic distribution, there is really no "ideal"
time):
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) Thu 04-Mar-2004 3:00pm California time (which would be 11 pm
in
>>>>> London; 7 am in West Australia, and 6 pm in New Jersey)
>>>>>
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=4&month=3&year=
2004&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=224
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) Thu 11-Mar-2004 2:00pm California time
>>>>>
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=11&month=3&year
=2004&hour=14&min=0&sec=0&p1=224
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (c) Thu 11-Mar-2004 3:00pm California time
>>>>>
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=11&month=3&year
=2004&hour=15&min=0&sec=0&p1=224
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (d) Thu 11-Mar-2004 4:00pm California time
>>>>>
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=11&month=3&year
=2004&hour=16&min=0&sec=0&p1=224
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is important to our ubl-ontology work. Ontolog participants,
>>>>> please make your best attempt to participate, and please so
>>>>> indicate, in order that we can make our best effort to accomodate
>>>>> everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks & regards. -ppy
>>>>> --
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (024)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (025)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (026)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (027)
|