[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Range of Application
Carl:
I don't want to be picky, just to get the picture
clear.
Is the SemConMan SC an actual TC sub-committee or
just a "working group" of the ebXML Registry TC? It is simply not on the radar
anywhere. I ask because this could be a valid case for bringing it up to a full
TC: they will be those (myself included) who would be interested in SemConMan,
but not 'just' the ebXML registry TC.
In this circulstance, there would be valuable
cross-over with the broader TM-PubSubj objectives
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl
Mattocks
To: Patrick Durusau
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Range of Application <quote who="Patrick Durusau"> > Peter, > > Peter Brown wrote: >> Hi Carl, Hi Bernard.... >> >> <quote who="Carl Mattocks"> >> >Acknowledged - the link is for OASIS members. >> > >> >Below is an extract from the charter. >> ><charter-extract> >> >The Semantic Content Management SC was established by the OASIS >> ebXML... >> </quote> >> Unfortunately, the link is even for the TC administrator only, not even >> OASIS members... >> BTW: the OASIS members area doesn't show *any* reference at all >> to SemConManSC of the ebXML Registry....??? We have requested that web access will be made easier via a link from OASIS list of TC's >> I would be interested in more detail, particularly as there is always >> the danger of "scope creep": although there are plenty of things that do >> need to be done, "our" TC is about Published Subjects, not about >> semantic interoperability through public registration of ontologies and >> ontological constructs...The SCMSC sounds closer to the "SeeBIG" TC >> idea.... >> > Was not trying to suggest "scope creep", just an observation that > Published Subjects could be used by a number of different technologies. > Agreed - the members of the SCMSC would probably encourage to facilitate semantic interoperability through public registration of ontologies and ontological constructs. >> >> <quote who="Patrick Durusau"> >> > >> > What I am thinking is that the definitions should be as generic to >> the >> > general concept of PSIs as possible so as to allow for future >> > deliverables to address the needs to topic maps and other >> technologies >> > (or the development of deliverables by other communities for their >> own >> > purposes). >> </quote>. >> Is this not the tail wagging the dog? Surely business drivers will lead >> to definition of general concepts and requirements, and *then* such >> generic definitions can be "narrowed" to specific TM implementations...? >> > > No because no matter how urgent a business driver may be, it cannot > supply the intellectual content that underlies the general concepts and > terminology. Such drivers may well influence how soon such concepts and > terminology are narrowed for specfic cases but that is a different issue. > > We may well be talking about the same thing in slightly different ways. > What I think is important is that the concepts and terminology be > specific enough to be useful but not limited to a particular set of > uses. Able to be driven to narrower cases by more specific business > drivers if you like. > Acknowledged - I do consider that PSI's have the potential to add value many forms of semantic structures. -- Carl Mattocks co-Chair OASIS ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC CEO CHECKMi v/f (usa) 908 322 8715 www.CHECKMi.com Semantically Smart Compendiums (AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]