[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] notes from today's meeting

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:33:04 -0700
Message-id: <4182EF50.3000109@xxxxxxxx>
Thanks, Peter. You did a wonderful job documenting the discussion we had 
at the call.    (01)

I offer a couple of suggested modifications:    (02)

(a) that the four instances of your use of the term "SUMO" be modified 
to "a SUMO-based CCT-ontology"  (as the [cctont] is supposed to be a 
domain ontology that is extended from SUMO, and not SUMO, nor fully a 
part of the upper ontology per se.)    (03)

(b) in your "As things stand, there is a one-one mapping between CCT 
concept and SUMO concept" (at 
you might have actually meant "... there isn't ..."; and hence, I 
suggest modifying that to read "As things stand, there isn't a one-one 
mapping between CCT concept and SUMO-based CCT-ontology concept."    (04)

I have captured your input into the meeting proceedings (see: 
and added links to your references.
(I have already incorporated the above suggested modifications, but will 
be happy to revert them back to your original, if I had misinterpreted 
your intention.)    (05)

Regards.  -ppy
--    (06)

Peter Denno wrote Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:20:57 -0400:    (07)

>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. 
>Monica Martin will provide an example and Adam Pease and I will discuss the 
>approach in more detail in email to this group. 
>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.
>PERSPECTIVE 1:  The goal of the CCT/ontology mapping effort is to show how the 
>CCTs can be described by similar concepts in SUMO. 
>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. 
>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. 
>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. 
>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. 
>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.
>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.
>Adam express concern that the spec may not provide enough guidance to do this. 
>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.
>The goals, as described in section 4.5 of the specification include:
>- "provide a way to identify, capture, and maximize the re-use of business 
>information to support and enhance information interoperability..."
>- "...capture a wealth of information about the business reasons for variation 
>in in message semantics and structure..."
>Peter Yim pointed suggested that this too was much too large an effort and 
>suggested that we concentrate on a single BCC.
>Monica Martin suggested that we look at the CCT Primer and particularly the 
>example "Goods. Delivery. Date Time" 
>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. 
>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.
>    (08)

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    (09)

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