[234]                               home                           [236]

 

Thursday, November 24, 2005

 

 The BCNGroup Beadgames

National Project à 

Challenge Problem  à

 Center of Excellence Proposal à

 

 

 

 

Discussion about ONTAC forum

ONTAC stands for Ontology and Taxonomy Coordinating Working Group

It is a working group of

Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP)

 

 

 

Discussion Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Hub ontology

 

Communication to ONTAC from Paul Prueitt

 

I liked what I saw in the ISO 15926 Part 1, where there is a general ontology. 

 

http://www.infowebml.ws/ECM4.5/ECM4.5.html

 

It also has the flavor of a object oriented class hierarchy, and thus has the usefulness that so many programmers have become aware of.  Inheritance, encapsulation,

 

I have a question for those here.  

 

Why is ISO 15926 not sufficient as a general ontology for web services across all "business exchanges".   Has the generality of this set of 201 entities been tested in other domains - not oil and gas.   Is there a move towards ending the standard setting process and actually using this specific set of "entities" in oil and gas?

 

As long as the standards are not stable, the businesses that benefit are limited to those few that are developing standards.  The larger (theoretical) value from the notion of Semantic Web (that part which is correct) is not accessable, if the bulk of the standards are not set. 

 

If there was an ontology hub (freely available sets of entities such as ISO 15926) where each industry adopted and modified (see the original ISO 15926) would we see the end to the standardization processes?

 

I mean, the end to uncertainly.  I do not mean a closed system where every element is set forever.  

 

I would also like to point to OASIS standards

 

http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/index.php

 

in particular to

 

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-cppa/documents/ebcpp-2.0.pdf

which is an detailed set of specifications for electronic business XML collaboration protocol profiles.

 

for example:

 

The role element has the following attributes:

   a required name attribute

   a fixed xlink:type attribute

   a required xlink:href attribute

 

 

I ask again, why the standardization process is not coming to a completion, given that specifications like that OASIS specification were largely completed in 2002.

 

see also

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/201.htm

 

 

I am reminded of John Sowa's recent note to me regarding the need to legislate standards.

 

In a note from

 

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/206.htm

 

we do not see any reference to OASIS.  Why is this?

 

In summary, a reference ontology seems to be about concepts used within a domain space, (I am thinking about the domain of all e-commerce activity).  So the

 

http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/index.php#cppav2

 

could be a reference ontology that has specific specifications that allow interoperability between "things" that need to interoperate.  Why is this not the end to the standardization process?

 

Again, the imposition of a "logic" or something like lattices for use in inferencing, seems to be the imposition that kills clarity.  

 

A hub of reference models is what the B-2-B transaction space needs.  Yes?