John, (01)
You say: " So, it may be useful to focus on ways to extend the proven
WWW model, via W3C processes, to accommodate the CDSI requirements before
branching out to seriously consider other less tried and proven approaches." (02)
I don't see that the W3C or Semantic Web community has a candidate
solution for CDSI. Tim Berners-Lee talks about "let a thousand flowers bloom,"
but that's the old N**2 problem. If they have a candidate solution, could
someone please explain it to us. (03)
(I agree all the candidate technical solution are unclear paths, and
none may work, but I believe large enterprises should try pursuing all viable
candidates.) (04)
Jim Schoening (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John Flynn
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 9:46 AM
To: 'common upper ontology working group'; bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Flynn, John P.'
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] White Paper (06)
Cory, (07)
A typical problem with government designed and managed architectures is that
they have the potential to represent a lowest common denominator (LCD) approach
in order to accommodate the interest of all the candidate participants. The
resultant LCD architectures are so vague that they still allow many
non-interoperable applications to be developed and almost always contain
relatively easy to obtain provisions for exceptions. It seems that the one
architectural standard that has best held up over a number of years, gracefully
evolved and truly supported broad interoperability is the World Wide Web
architecture. It was not designed or managed by the government. Also, it is not
proprietary. So, it may be useful to focus on ways to extend the proven WWW
model, via W3C processes, to accommodate the CDSI requirements before branching
out to seriously consider other less tried and proven approaches. (08)
John (09)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:21 AM
To: bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'common upper ontology working group'
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] White Paper (010)
Brad,
We have been thinking along similar lines but I submit the government has to
own their architectures, only they have the cross-cutting view (or should
have). Contractors can help build these, but the architecture asset (as the
expression of the enterprise, enterprise needs and solutions - business or
technical) has to be put into the acquisition cycle. Systems then need to
be built to that architecture is an executable, testable way. Those
architectures have to STOP being "for a system" and be "for the enterprise".
SOA makes a great model for these architectures - separating concerns and
providing the boundaries to build to. The semantic technologies can help here
to join and bridge architectures, but you are absolutely correct that the core
problem is not technical. -Cory (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (012)
|