Ron (01)
I wonder if you would look at a large MacroMedia presentation on
CoreTalk.... (02)
the down load link is from (03)
http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/safeNet/one.htm (04)
I know this system well, and would like to compare it with the UDEF work
that you have made recent presentations on. (05)
http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/Expedition_Workshop/2005-12-06_Advancing_Inf
ormation_Sharing_And_Data_Architecture/UDEF-DNS-6Dec2005.ppt (06)
Coretalk is more advanced than RosettaNet, but has not been adopted anywhere
(the creator is looking for a large (deserved in my opinion) position in the
future B-2-B space). (07)
I am also making some notes on why the UDEF is in fact an framework (like
the Zachman framework) (08)
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/287.htm (09)
(Damn, there is so much to say here.... Frameworks like Sowa and Zachman
involve a "square matrix" where primatives are combined (or aggreggated)..
but Adi is more complex and involves linkage when there are specifical
substructural elements in the aggregation. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule
has a cross categorization ... etc.) (010)
The UDEF seems to focus on really getting the data interoperability down
correct and with a workable universal open standard (like ANSI). (011)
You talk about bridging ontologies, and this is the key. In my opinion we
should pull back from the semantic concepts ... there are just too many
mistakes to be made, and the seeming requirement that all be made at least
ten times. Data interoperablility would certain shed light on the mistakes,
and - WHEN DATA INTEROPERABILITY IS ACHIEVED - the theory of meaning can be
approached using natural science. (012)
I also noticed a similarity between slide 15 (creating UDEF trees) and the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The HTS is composed of ten volumes of what is a
type of taxonomy over ALL commodities. However, the assignment of a HTS
code to a "commodity" is a matter of adjudication - much like in legal
matters. This is done manually by domain experts. (013)
The HTS is a from of ontology (without logic) because it characterizes
Custom's understanding of commodities. It is a legal document. The problem
that people have has to do with viewpoint and this is negiatoed between
businesses and a ruling body in New York. (014)
In my work, that I stepped away from in Feburary 2005, was to develop a
threats ontology using HTS and a process methodology that I discribe in part
at: (015)
http://www.datawarehouse.com/search/?FREETXT=Prueitt (016)
The viewpoint issue comes about because the HTS ruling are related to
protection of American products from certain types of competition. The
notion of threat monitoring is a slightly different viewpoint. (017)
I thought I saw a way to get at this, but just was not able to work with the
LMCO management so I took a leave of absence. Your presentation reminded me
of that undone work. (018)
The UDEF takes that part of the problem that can be solved and solves it. (019)
Your slide 17 looks a lot like my diagrams in the Roadmap. I sure wish we
could have made a connection while I was still under contract to LMCO. (020)
Paul Prueitt (021)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (022)
|