[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] XML and Ontologies

To: Owen_Ambur@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ahassam@xxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, swebb@xxxxxxxxx, kcm@xxxxxxxxxxxx, aschwartz@xxxxxxx, Kenneth.B.Sall@xxxxxxxx
From: "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:05:52 -0800
Message-id: <459423A0.7030906@xxxxxxxx>
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)

Regards.  =ppy
--    (03)

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"                                                   
>              <peter.yim@xxxxxx                                             
>              om>                                                        To 
>              Sent by:                  Owen Ambur/PIR/OS/DOI@DOI           
>              peter.yim@xxxxxxx                                          cc 
>              om                        "[ontolog-forum]"                   
>                                        <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>    
>                                                                    Subject 
>              12/28/2006 03:00          Re: XML and Ontologies              
>              AM                                                            
> 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)

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