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
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2004-10/msg00041.html#nid06),
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:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2004_10_28#nid0187)
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)
>Hi,
>
>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/
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 (09)
|