Ed, (01)
I've subscribed you to the list already. (02)
Would be wonderful if you could: (03)
(a) complete and return our membership profile survey (at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/survey/ontolog0.html) (04)
(b) make a first post by introducing yourself to the community
<mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, and then, (05)
(c) start a thread and engage other to discuss the kind of
collaboration between those domain you alluded to earlier. (06)
Yes. Thanks for the OCLC announcement link. Very interesting paper there. (07)
Regards. -ppy
-- (08)
Ed Dodds wrote Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:05:16 -0500: (09)
>Did you happen to see this link?
>
>http://www.oclc.org/research/announcements/2004-06-10.htm
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter P. Yim [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:29 PM
>To: dodds@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: librarians, biz folks & content managers was - Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd:
>Re: ubl + ebxml = increased interoperability?]
>
>
>Ed,
>
>That's a interesting thought. ... you might even be able to start a
>dialog among those who are interested.
>
>With your permission, I can subscribe you to our mailing list (see
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?HomePage#nid019 about our
>membership), and can forward this thread over to the list. You might try
>to interest people into having a conversation on the matter ... if you
>are so inclined.
>
>Cheers. -ppy
>--
>
>Ed Dodds wrote Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:41:39 -0400 :
>
>
>
>>Peter:
>>
>>My thinking may be loopy but from biz folks perspectives everything is
>>about making "the message go." But from the auditors persepctive everything
>>
>>
>is about why the message went. The way one answers the question is to look
>at the supporting documents -- which have to be stored based on some
>ontology.
>
>
>>>From my perspective, the auditors don't want this data stored
>>
>>
>>>automatically because then they aren't needed to audit. The content
>>>management people don't think in terms of biz ontologies because they
>>>tend to inherit stuff from library science -- however indirectly.
>>>Librarians don't concern themselves with current biz ontologies
>>>because ... well, I don't know why they don't, but they don't.
>>>
>>>
>>I just thought if you could put the librarians, the biz folks, the
>>content
>>managers together in a room and have them scowl at the auditors there might
>>
>>
>be a bit more conmergence in these sectors than has happened.
>
>
>>Told you my thinking might be loopy...
>>
>>---- Original message ----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:13:57 -0700
>>>From: "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
>>>Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: ubl + ebxml = increased interoperability?
>>>To: dodds@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Cc: "[ontolog-admin] forum" <ontolog-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>Ed,
>>>
>>>I am not aware of any member in the community being from OCLC (Online
>>>Computer Library Center, right?)
>>>
>>>Would love to, if it is relevant ... we (ontolog) are focussed on just
>>>the "business" domain, though. (see our charter at:
>>>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?HomePage#nid011
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>PPY
>>>--
>>>
>>>
>>>Ed Dodds wrote Thu, 15 Jul 2004 13:50:33 -0400:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Peter:
>>>>
>>>>Do you ever get cooperation from the folks at the research arm of
>>>>OCLC.com ?
>>>>
>>>>Ed Dodds
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
> (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|