Very interesting (and challenging) proposition. (01)
Not being familia with the StratML CoP personally, I
would extend my invitation here to leaders of the
StratML CoP to either continue this conversation online
(if anyone of you are already on the [ontolog-forum]),
or contact me off-line, if you welcome the initiation
of a dialog (with Ontolog) along the lines that Owen
has suggested ... and we can all take it from there. (02)
Owen_Ambur@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:52:28
> Peter, with reference to the "doing something useful" part of your reply,
> here's a thought:
> How about helping the StratML CoP properly model the <Relationship>
> element of the XML vocabulary and schema for strategic plans?
> What is a <Goal> at one layer of the bureaucracy may be an <Objective> at
> another, and vice versa. The objective of the <Relationship> element will
> be to enable the linkage of any goal to any objective, any objective to any
> other objective, and/or any goal to any other goal -- while specifying the
> *type* of relationship being identified. (Types may include such concepts
> as "broader than," "narrower than" and "similar to".) The same objective
> will apply to other elements, like <Stakeholder> and <Mission>. Initially,
> the point would be to enable anyone to identify any such linkages on the
> Web but, eventually, full-text indexing/search engines should be able to
> automatically identify many of the as-yet-unidentified relationships (by
> analyzing the semantics of "well-formed" goal and objective statements).
> Please note that the <Relationship> element is *not* among those that I
> believe should be included in the StratML CoP's initial deliverable
> containing the core set that must be part of every strategic plan in order
> for it to be part of the Strategic Semantic Web. The reason I don't think
> it should be included is that I'm afraid it may be too complex and, thus,
> poses undue risk to our initial deliverable. (For example, unless there is
> already a well-accepted standard set of relationship types that we can
> simply reference, I could envision an endless debate on that topic.)
> However, if the folks in the tavern are sober enough to make a convincing
> case to the contrary, I am open to the prospect of being proven wrong.
> Owen (04)
> "Peter Yim"
> om> To
> Sent by: Owen Ambur/PIR/OS/DOI@DOI
> peter.yim@xxxxxxx cc
> om "[ontolog-forum]"
> 12/28/2006 03:00 Re: XML and Ontologies
> Thank you very much, Owen ...
> I love you answers and admire your pragmatism. ... as you suggested,
> we will continue to "enjoy our time in the tavern" in the mean time,
> AND, hopefully, do something useful for people while we are at it.
> Enjoy your retirement! ... and come hang out, every now and then, and
> share your wisdom with us (if you please).
> Best wishes. =ppy
> -- (05)
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 (06)