Jim, (01)
I would make a distinction between "technologies" and "computer languages".
As far as languages themselves go, I agree with the rating of 9 for RDF and
OWL. They are fully developed, peer-reviewed and accepted W3C computer
languages. They may, and likely will, evolve as most languages do, including
Algol, Fortran, LISP, Ada, Java, C++, C# and any other computer language you
can name that has been useful enough to have some longevity. As for
ontologies, which are concepts expressed using the descriptive logic
language of RDF/OWL, they are fully mature if they accurately and correctly
express the concepts their author(s) intended them to express. If a specific
domain ontology or "upper" ontology correctly expresses the concepts it
intends to express and doesn't express any logical errors, such as
paradoxes, it is as mature as it can possibly be. Now, you may argue that
any specific ontology is not "complete". However, completeness is in the eye
of the beholder. What is totally complete for one application may be
woefully incomplete to support some other application. (02)
I think a problem with the paper, and much of the general discussion on this
topic, is that we need a better definition of "interoperability". Until
there is a clear statement of what we mean by interoperability we are
grasping at straws in trying to find, or assess, technical solutions for the
problem. Interoperability at a very low level might mean that all systems
use the same concept for integers - say an infinite set of base 10 whole
numbers. They are interoperable to the extent that if a user interacts with
any of them he/she can expect an integer to be the same in terms of input or
output from each system. You could carry that concept of interoperability a
step further by including measurements of distances, weights, volume, time,
etc. If all the systems were developed using common meanings for these items
they would have some degree of interoperability. A distance of one foot in
one system would mean the same in any other system and the results of
computations from one system using these agreed upon meanings could be used
in another system without fear of causing confusion. You don't really need
an ontology, domain or upper, to get this level of interoperability. You
only need agreement by all system developers and users on fairly basic
concepts. So, where do we really start to have serious problems with system
interoperability? I propose that the most fundamental problem is that most
systems aren't designed to be interoperable in the fist place. They are
designed to be stand-alone entities. It wouldn't matter if everyone in the
world agreed exactly on the meaning and use of terms and concepts if the
system isn't capable of taking and using inputs from other systems and
providing outputs for other systems to use. Assuming we solve that basic
interoperability problem and are only concerned with systems that are
designed to interoperate then it seems the problem with interoperability
lies only in the area where confusion between the systems might occur. There
is no need for a logistics system to be interoperable with a financial
system if there is absolutely no overlap between the two. There is nothing
for them to share. It is only in the area where two, or more, systems
overlap in the use of terms and concepts that the potential for
interoperability and confusion arises. A survey of systems from within the
same domains and across domains would reveal those terms and concepts that
do overlap and therefore provide the potential for confusion. I expect that
set of overlapping terms and concepts is fairly large, but manageable. Once
the overlapping terms and concepts are bounded we can then look at and
assess technologies that are best suited to provide the needed commonality
or necessary translation to achieve the desired level of interoperability. (03)
John (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:49 AM
To: 'common upper ontology working group'
Subject: [cuo-wg] How would you rate these semantic technologies?
ConferenceCall Wed Dec 20, 11:30-12:30 (05)
CDSI, (06)
The attached paper rates the following semantic technologies: (07)
Technology: Score: (See Appendix 2 for scale)
XML/Metadata 9
RDF 9
OWL 9
Stand-alone ontologies 6
Upper Ontologies 4
Mapped Upper Ontologies 1 (08)
What's your opinion? Join us for tomorrow's teleconference and
let's discuss. Details below (09)
Jim Schoening (010)
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 8:45 AM
To: common upper ontology working group
Subject: CDSI Draft Paper and Conference Call Wed Dec 20, 11:30-12:30 (011)
Cross Domain Semantic Interoperability WG, (012)
The 2nd conference call of this group is scheduled for next
Wednesday, Dec 20th, 11:30 AM -12:30 PM EST. Join by dialing
(888)622-5357 and entering the code 342803. (013)
Attached is a draft paper, which will be discussed. The paper
attempts to explain, to the layman, that current technology cannot achieve
'Data Interoperability across the Enterprise.' It concludes that emerging
technology has promise and should be pursued. It makes a first cut at
rating various technologies on a 9-level maturity scale, which needs further
discussion. (014)
Please join the telecon and invite other stakeholders. The
CDSI-WG web site is at http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/CDSI. (015)
James R. Schoening
U.S. Army C-E LCMC CIO/G6 Office
Voice: DSN 992-5812 or (732) 532-5812
Fax: DSN 992-7551 or (732) 532-7551
Email: James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|