Re: addressing the gap

Sorry for the delayed reply Paola. My comments below:

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM,  <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1) what gap? there are a lot of gaps. I concern myself here with the
> 'semantic gap' (conceptual,linguistic) that is both part of, and cause of, a
> 'pragmatic gap'. (operational).

To me identifying the gap will involve working first through a
use-case like the "who is doing what where" problem to identify the
base ontology. next we would identify (system to system) interop
standards that would intersect with the ontology. What remain not
covered by a interop standard is a interop gap. This tells us where an
interop standard need to be developed to full cover the use-case.

Another sense of gap, is in what interop standards is implemented by
the range of systems that implement the 3W use-case. Irrespective of
weather a interop standard exists, if it is hardly implemented in
systems than that too is an implementation gap.

By constraining the scope to a use-case we can make this a manageable
exercise to finish before our deadline. We just need to cover the 3W
area for our framework document and it will serve as an example for
the final report.

Chamindra de Silva
http://chamindra.googlepages.com

Received on Saturday, 18 April 2009 11:28:46 UTC