[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] notes from today's meeting

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Peter Denno <peter.denno@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:20:57 -0400
Message-id: <200410281820.57573.peter.denno@xxxxxxxx>
Hi,    (01)

In today's meeting we stepped back a bit to consider what the goal of the CCT 
mapping effort should be. The way I understand it, we discussed something 
like the following three 'perspectives' on what might be accomplished by this 
effort, and we agreed to work on something that is a combination of 
Perspective 2 and  Perspective 3, below.     (02)

Monica Martin will provide an example and Adam Pease and I will discuss the 
approach in more detail in email to this group.     (03)

If you think this doesn't capture today's meeting, or you missed the meeting 
and think we are headed in the wrong direction, please comment. I'm sure I 
didn't do a perfect job of capturing the meeting.    (04)

PERSPECTIVE 1:  The goal of the CCT/ontology mapping effort is to show how the 
CCTs can be described by similar concepts in SUMO.     (05)

This is closest to where the effort is now. As things stand, there is a 
one-one mapping between CCT concept and SUMO concept. After some email 
discussion yesterday, the participants seemed to all agree that this was 
going to be a difficult path. Considering Code.Type particularly, a few of us 
felt that the current mapping -- simply to SymbolicString -- was not 
sufficient. A few us (I'm in both groups) also felt that the spec was not 
clear enough to do a better job.     (06)

Nonetheless, this exercise demonstrated one thing we could accomplish by the 
mapping exercise: we could use it to identify problems with the 
specification. For example, at my urging, Adam suggested a constraint on 
Code.Type such that it not reference something of type &%Physical. It was 
later determined that the CCT spec didn't really intend that constraint.     (07)

This approach taken to extreme might produce an ontology-based conformance 
checking tool for the CCTs. That would be interesting, but it is a very 
ambitious goal.     (08)

PERSPECTIVE 2: The goal of the CCT/ontology mapping effort is to use SUMO to 
produce a meta-model similar in structure to what is described in the CCT 
spec. In doing so, we capture some of the purpose of the CCTs.     (09)

Figure 6-1 from the spec would provide some input to this approach. In this 
work we would start with the 1-1 mapping of concepts that we have now, but 
add some of the relationship such as depicted in Figure 6-1, and whatever 
else we might learn from the CCT spec.    (010)

Alan Stitzer thought that if we were to go this route, we'd be better off 
looking at the BCCs, since they are more tangible.    (011)

Adam express concern that the spec may not provide enough guidance to do this.     (012)

PERSPECTIVE 3: The goal of the CCT/ontology mapping effort is to show how SUMO 
can be used accomplish some of the goals of the CCTs, using some of the 
fundamental concepts of the CCTs.    (013)

The goals, as described in section 4.5 of the specification include:    (014)

- "provide a way to identify, capture, and maximize the re-use of business 
information to support and enhance information interoperability..."    (015)

- "...capture a wealth of information about the business reasons for variation 
in in message semantics and structure..."    (016)

Peter Yim pointed suggested that this too was much too large an effort and 
suggested that we concentrate on a single BCC.    (017)

Monica Martin suggested that we look at the CCT Primer and particularly the 
example "Goods. Delivery. Date Time"     (018)

I suggested that maybe it would be useful to use the Primer example as a 
guide, but more instructive to look at something such as INCOTERMS 2000 
(shipping codes) since DateTime may cause us to concentrate (misdirect?) our 
effort on the structural (implementation?) issues of describing a DateTime 
item in ISO 8601 format. ...But the details here can be worked out later, 
after we see the example that Monica is providing.     (019)

The idea in this perspective might be to classify kinds of code types, and 
model a few salient aspects of them. For example we might model the notions 
of Cost and Risk as used in INCOTERMS, (that just an example, I don't intend 
to say we should go with INCOTERMS). Most of the notions we'd model would 
parallel things in CCTs. The effort would try to provide a compelling 
argument for using the ontology to record differences in business semantics 
-- this done as part of a methodology for constructing messages types. This 
is a goal of the CCTs.    (020)

Best Regards, 
- Peter     (021)

Peter Denno 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Manufacturing System Integration Division, 
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8260             Tel: +1 301-975-3595 
Gaithersburg, MD, USA 20899-8260             FAX: +1 301-975-4694
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    (022)

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