cuo-wg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [cuo-wg] WC3 Solutions

To: "common upper ontology working group" <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Adrian Walker" <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:41:55 -0500
Message-id: <1e89d6a40611190841t70011309kd6180987636e53e4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Jim --

Agreed, W3C RDF-OWL are unlikely to solve CDSI without  additional help [1,2].

However, RDF is a pivot data representation, and as such is 2N. 

It has other drawbacks, but not the N**2 one.

Cheers,  -- Adrian

[1]  www.semantic-conference.com/program/sessions/S2.html

[2]  www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
Phone: USA 860 830 2085





On 11/19/06, Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6 <James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John,

        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."

        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.

        (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.)

Jim Schoening


-----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


Cory,


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.

John

-----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

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




_________________________________________________________________
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


 _________________________________________________________________
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    (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>