Hi All --
A quick scan of www.mip-site.org seems to indicate that MIP leans towards XML.
So, perhaps RDF would be one of several technologies beyond XML (but related to it) for CDSI to explore?
Cheers, -- Adrian
Adrian Walker
Reengineering
Phone: USA 860 830 2085
On 11/20/06, Measure, Ed (Civ, ARL/CISD) <emeasure@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jim et. al.,
How does CDSI relate to C2IEDM and the MIP? Is it
intended to incorporated or supercede it?
Ed
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
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|