Ed,
C2IEDM is a data model (represented as an
Entity Relationship model) for the Command and Control domain. I am working on
a project for the Army at Ft Monmouth that is developing the C4ISR Ontology,
which is an Owl ontology that uses the C2IEDM data model as a starting point. In
the context of Cross Domain Semantic Interoperability (CDSI), our C4ISR
Ontology can be considered a domain ontology for the Command and Control
domain.
The latest version of the C2IEDM Entity
Relationship data model has been renamed the Joint Consultation Command &
Control Information Exchange Data Model (JC3IEDM). The Army is pushing JC3IEDM
as a common data model to be used as a common format for interoperability among
systems. I am positioning our C4ISR Ontology as a more powerful model than
JC3IEDM that will enable “semantic interoperability”.
Darrell.
Darrell Woelk
Director, Austin Research
Center
Telcordia Technologies
106 E. Sixth Street
Littlefield Bldg, #415
Austin, Texas 78701
www.telcordia.com
Phone: 512-478-9997
Mobile: 512-680-0780
From:
cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Measure, Ed (Civ, ARL/CISD)
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006
10:57 AM
To: common upper ontology working
group
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] WC3
Solutions
Jim et. al.,
How does CDSI relate to C2IEDM and the
MIP? Is it intended to incorporated or supercede it?
Ed
From:
cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Walker
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006
9:42 AM
To: common upper ontology working
group
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] WC3
Solutions
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