[ontolog] Member Conference Call - Thu 2004-10-28    (3SF)

Conference Call Details    (3SG)

Attendees    (3SU)

Agenda Ideas    (3T4)

Agenda & Proceedings    (3T7)

1) Welcome & confirmation of agenda    (3T8)

2) Appointment of secretary to take minutes    (3TA)

3) Roll-call of participants    (3TC)

4) Upcoming meeting & event schedule (near future)    (3TE)

5) Communications, logistics, & work protocols issues    (3TZ)

6) Follow-ups from previous calls    (3U1)

7) Current Project Status Report    (3U3)

8) CctRepresentation project work session    (3UE)

... 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.    (3VK)

Monica Martin will provide an example and Adam Pease and I will discuss the approach in more detail in email to this group.    (3VL)

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.    (3VM)

This is closest to where the effort is now. Our early investigation suggests there isn't a one-one mapping between CCT concept and SUMO-based CCT-ontology 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.    (3VP)

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.    (3VQ)

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.    (3VR)

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.    (3VU)

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.    (3VV)

Adam express concern that the spec may not provide enough guidance to do this.    (3VW)

The goals, as described in section 4.5 of the specification include:    (3VZ)

Peter Yim pointed suggested that this too was much too large an effort and suggested that we concentrate on a single BCC.    (3W8)

Monica Martin suggested that we look at the CCT Primer and particularly the example "Goods. Delivery. Date Time"    (3W9)

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.    (3WA)

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.    (3WB)

9) New project proposals    (3WC)

10) Sponsorship and funding    (3WE)

11) Other business    (3WG)

12) Next meeting date and adjourn    (3WI)

 minutes captured in real time on this wiki by PeterYim
 ppy / 2004.10.28 12:11pm PDT
 additioal input from: PeterDenno / 2004.10.28 6:20pm EDT    (3WL)