|
Darrell,
Thanks. My main concern is to see whether anybody is
trying to put these various pieces together. I know of others, in
particular in the Corps of Engineers, who are working on their own attempts to
generalize and add semantic and syntactic expressiveness to the C2IEDM
framework. It seems to me that somebody, maybe even the CDSI working
group, should be tracking and attempting to integrate or at least coordinate
these efforts.
Ed
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
|