|
Adrean,
No languages or standard for respresenting
knowledge solve the problem of CDSI. They all enable groups to
define data models or ontologies, but these models will not be semantically
interoperable.
Jim Schoening
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)
|