Re: addressing the gap

Hi Paola,

My comments below:

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 6:21 PM,  <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I dont see what I would call a gap there,  (a gap would be perhaps mroe like
> identify who is NOT doing what where' , but maybe you can better suggest a
> method for what you mean

Yes agreed there is no gap at this stage. Here we are coming up with
the base ontology that will fist give us the scope of the interop
requirements.
>
>>
>> next we would identify (system to system) interop
>> standards that would intersect with the ontology.
>
> does the list that we already have on the wiki not satisfy that already?

I do not think we have that list yet. The first gap is the gap between
the ontology/entities identified for the Use-case and the interop
standards that exists to cover the space of the use-case ontology. Not
sure if I am using the right terms here as I am not an ontology
expert.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> okay, so 'interoperability gap' = interoperability requirements -
> interoperability standards (assuming linearity)

Yes this is exactly the first gap.
>>
>> Another sense of gap, is in what interop standards is implemented by
>> the range of systems that implement the 3W use-case.
>
> then we need a list of these, and possbly some ranking (of what systems are
> more in use)

Yes this is the second gap and requires an investigation into the
standards supported by the EM systems we have listed.
>
>>
> I think the semantic gap and pragmatic gaps are part of an interop gap , and
> that's as far as I can stretch my scope of work in the near future

Great. That would be a much appreciated contribution.
>

Chamindra

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 16:45:25 UTC