|
All,
Leo is correct here.
Must must distinguish between the language and the content expressed in that
language.
A standard language, used by
different parties, does not produce interoperable content. It doesn't
matter how expressive the language is, the content will still be
unique. Unique content can work fine within a domain, but not
outside the domain.
Jim Schoening
Yes, we are addressing a content standard here, not a
useful knowledge representation language for expressing that content. Content is
expressed in the KR language, and the language is largely independent (not
completely, depending on the expressivity desired in the content; you can't
easily shoehorn content that requires e.g. higher order quantification into
a description logic).
Semantic interoperability requires:
1) representation in a KR language that you can map or
translate to/from or a common KR language,
2) but primarily commonality of content, i.e., a common (or
set of common) middle/upper ontologies or common reference domain ontology. You
can try to create an integration ontology (a generalization of the set of
mappings between them) that spans two ontologies and get farther. But you'll
find that you are largely creating a common domain ontology, and eventually a
common middle, upper ontology. How else can you have commensurability, i.e.,
comparable or comparative semantics? The alternative is that you pass the
mappings all the way across and up to humans every time, i.e., require humans to
continually make semantic decisions. Possible but
unrealistic.
Thanks,
Leo
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo
Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information
Semantics
lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Center for Innovative
Computing & Informatics
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire
Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA
22102-7508, USA
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)
|