Tatiana Malyuta, PhD
Associate Professor
Computer Systems Technology Department
New York City College of Technology
>>> peter.yim@xxxxxxxx 08/14/06 3:23 PM >>>
Thank you, Owen. (01)
Folks ... Owen Amber (DoI, XML-CoP) came back with this set of
thought provoking, and actually, rather challenging questions. (02)
Each and everyone of Owen's questions calls for some deep
thinking, some form of answer/solution, but (evidently, more
importantly to Owen) some action to follow. (03)
... comments, suggestions, insights, solicited. Extending the
real time discussion to this asynchronous platform, let's see if
our community can 'collectively' take a crack at Owen's challenge! (04)
Cheers. =ppy
-- (05)
Owen_Ambur@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:49:52 -0400:
>
> Peter, I'm not sure I can afford to be subscribed to more groups or
> stovepipe IT systems, and I am skeptical about the potential
productivity
> of my involvement in the ontolog forum. However, since you and Duane
think
> it might be worthwhile, I am willing to give it a try. (06)
> Aside from the issue of what actions folks like me may wish to
consider
> taking as a result of dialog on the telecon last week, here are some
other
> issues I'd like to explore with anyone who may share my interest in
doing
> so: (07)
> 1) How can we avoid forcing folks like me to subscribe to yet another
> group, listserv, "portal" or otherwise named "stovepipe" system in
order to
> share information with those with whom they hold interests in common,
> however fleeting or narrowly focused those interests might be? (08)
> For example, can an XML schema be specified enabling folks to describe
> their own interests on *any* site (e.g., their own, personal Web
sites)
> anywhere on the Web, thus avoiding the need for them to subscribe to
anyone
> else's site, while intermediary sites could index, automatically
establish
> linkages, and enable productive syntheses of information along
specialized
> lines of interest? (09)
> 2) How can the term "ontology" be operationally defined in terms of
what
> folks like me might be able to do -- on our own Web sites, with no
training
> nor any specialized tools -- to contribute to realization of the
vision of
> the semantic Web? (010)
> BTW, while I am far from being an ontological expert, from what I have
seen
> and heard, my working definition of the term "ontology" is "someone
else's
> top-level taxonomy that they are trying to impose on me." (011)
> 3) On the telecon last week someone (I think it was the guy from
Zapthink)
> said one of his customers decided not to use XML for one of their
> applications because there was no need to deal with the excessive
overhead
> associated with the verbosity of the XML coding. While it is easy to
> understand why compression and other means might be used to accelerate
the
> transmission of the electrons, the separation of content from its
> presentation has much to do with the fact that so many of our business
> processes are still so bound up in paper. Intuitively as well as
logically
> speaking, people know they cannot trust systems whose records lack
> integrity, including presentational integrity. The speed with which
> electrons can be transmitted is often not the most important business
> issue, indeed far from it. (012)
> Thus, I'd be curious to know whether the data being transmitted in the
> referenced application is important and, if so, whether it ever needs
to be
> shared with anyone else, e.g., partners, auditors, shareholders, or
other
> stakeholders. If not, how can it be important? If so, do the
benefits of
> accelerated internal transmission offset the costs associated with the
> inability to share the data readily with others? Presumably so, but
I'm
> curious to know how the records management (and sharing) requirements
are
> being addressed. (013)
> 4) Finally and perhaps most importantly, are there reusable components
> and/or specifications related to ontologies for which the CIO
Council's
> ET.gov site/process might productively be used to build .gov
communities of
> practice to foster implementation and incorporation in the Federal
> Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Technical Reference Model (TRM) or
Service
> Component Reference Model (SRM) and/or the Federal Transition
Framework
> (FTF) Catalog, for potential Governmentwide usage?
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/a-2-EAFTF.html (014)
> Note: Stage 1 of the ET.gov site/process implements the principle
outlined
> in item 1 above. http://et.gov/stage1.htm Folks can post their valid
XML
> instance documents anywhere on the public Web. They are not required
to
> "subscribe" to or otherwise re-create their digital personas at
ET.gov.
> Indeed, to avoid implications associated with the Privacy Act, we do
not
> store any personally identifiable information on the site. If
submitters
> wish to provide such information, it is stored on their own site or
the
> site or the site of any intermediary service they may choose to use.
> http://et.gov/policies.aspx#personalinformation (015)
> If you see any prospects for mutually productive pursuit along any of
these
> lines, I will be pleased to explore opportunities for collaboration
with
> anyone who may be interested in actions (small, manageable steps) that
we
> might take together as well as individually.
>
> Owen
--- (016)
> "Peter P. Yim" (017)
> <peter.yim@xxxxxx (018)
> om>
To
> Duane Nickull
<dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
> 08/11/2006 04:59
cc
> PM Owen Ambur/PIR/OS/DOI@DOI, Rex (019)
> Brooks <rexb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, (020)
> Niemann.Brand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (021)
>
Subject
> Re: [ontolog-forum]
Proceedings of
> the Ontolog Discussion -
Ontologies
> & SOA - Moderators:
DuaneNickull &
> Rex Broooks - Thu 2006.08.10 (022)
> (023)
> Great idea, Duane.
>
> Owen, let me subscribe you to the [ontolog-forum] list so that
> you can post to it. =ppy
> -- (024)
> Duane Nickull wrote Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:14:12 -0700:
>> I would like to actually suggest that instead of us answering that
>> perhaps Owen can post this request to the Ontolog Forum list.
>> I think others have a similar interest.
>>
>> Duane (025)
>> On 8/11/06 1:02 PM, "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Owen,
>>>
>>> It's just great that you were able to join us (at least for the
>>> good part of the session) yesterday.
>>>
>>> I'll let Duane or Rex answer you, specifically (although
>>> identifying reusable components probably wasn't one of the
>>> discussion focus yesterday ... it could well be for another
session!)
>>>
>>> I look forward to more collaboration with you and your
>>> communities in the future.
>>>
>>> Best regards. =ppy
>>> -- (026)
>>> Owen_Ambur@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:07:29 -0400:
>>>> Peter, Duane, Rex & Brand, I had to drop off the telecon yesterday
>>>> at 2:30. Were any conclusions drawn that might be subject to action (027)
>>>> by folks like me?
>>>>
>>>> For example, were any reusable components or relevant technical
>>>> specifications identified that might be candidates for the ET.gov
>>>> site/process? http://et.gov/
>>>>
>>>> BTW, Peter, I like the way you have introduced Rex in your subject
>>>> line. Kinda like Ed McMahon used say when he introduced Johnny
Carson
>>>> -- here'sRex Brooooks!
>>>>
>>>> Owen (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (029)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (030)
|