I suppose we are all approaching this with the same purpose: (01)
to try to reach a shared understanding, and an agreement on something,
document that, and then label it as a "standard" (02)
and then hope that the rest of the world would use that standard,
instead of creating their own, or repeating the painstaking exercise
usually needed to get people to reach that agreement again. (03)
I have a lot of respect for Mike Adcock who was working with Sue Probert
on this "definitive paper". They did recognize that there is always
something to argue about on the issue ... and therefore, just said
(something like), let's stop arguing and use this (the "definitive
paper") as our "shared understanding." (04)
The key mission of the [CCT-Representation] is to introduce the
ontological engineering approach to the standards community. We want to
go through an exercise (of building the CCT-ontology) by actually taking
an already agreed upon standard (the ebXML CCT) and express it in a
computable, and possibly even less ambiguous language (KIF in our case).
We want to be able to show, through having the [cctont], the potentials
of the ontological engineering approach and of having standards
expressed axiomatically. (05)
Therefore, if I may, I would request that we try to stay out of debates
on whether or not the prevailing standard (CCT, UBL, ... etc.) is
adequate, and focus on the above mission. This may not be possible all
the time (because if things were already totally unambiguous, then
reducing them to logic language will actually have less to contribute),
and under those circumstances, could we just try to use our bandwidth on
clarifying what the original author of the standard intended, rather
than pursuing its validity, as much as we can, please (and I understand
that the latter, can be difficult at times as well, but let's try our
best.) If we run into validity or even ambiguity issues, let's capture
them as observations and insight, and pass them back to the eBusiness
standards people, so that THEY (not us) can work on cleaning them up. (06)
-ppy
-- (07)
Peter Denno wrote Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:31:44 -0400: (08)
>Hi Monica,
>
>On Thursday 28 October 2004 10:13, Monica J. Martin wrote:
>
>
>>mm1: Minor non-technical point, it may be easy to criticize when you
>>have not been engaged in the substantive and productive work on code
>>lists. Substantial progress has been made, even though some new
>>observers may find it confusing. People are implementing it; UBL is a
>>prime example. And, they are working on a code list recommendation that
>>was supported by input from many organizations including NIST (effort
>>started in eBSC - reference Mark Palmer brief to Ontolog 26 October).
>>
>>
>
>I do not mean to be critical of the hard work that went into this spec. It is
>certainly good to see. However the paper you forwarded us, "Code vs
>Identifier - The Definitive Paper" says that the matter of Codes and
>Identifiers has "evoked considerable discussion" and states that it (the
>paper) is the "definitive decision with which we will work from now on." Yet
>those decisions were not recorded in the spec!
>
>Distinctions that are important to the specification need to be stated in
>definitions. You owe it to your implementors. The editor should take this to
>heart and define the terms he uses.
>
>
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|