W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-eiif@w3.org > February 2009

RE: Further comments on Figure 1, UML model sand phased framework

From: Mandana <mandanas@ece.ubc.ca>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:46:34 -0800
To: "'Gary Berg-Cross'" <gbergcross@gmail.com>, "'Renato Iannella'" <renato@nicta.com.au>
Cc: "'Hillman Mitchell'" <HMitchell@ci.tukwila.wa.us>, <rebecca_curzon@us.ibm.com>, "'public-xg-eiif'" <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00ae01c985a1$3f0f3580$bd2da080$@ubc.ca>


This is the problem we faced at the beginning. Figure 1 is the result of our
brainstorming session and without a framework, there are various ways to
classify the concepts. We were initially looking for proper approaches to do
so. The phased framework was actually one approach to it. Using upper
ontologies could be another one (top-down), or like the one you suggested as
a bottom-up approach. We chatted a bit about it in the teleconference call (
I was hoping we could discuss it with you too). The discussion was that for
now we need to be more specific about the approaches we are proposing than
harmonizing the concepts, although I agree with you that eventually we need
to harmonize the concepts. We have gathered some existing approaches on the
wiki and we probably need to relate what we propose to them as well ( to
indicate that the approaches are based on the problems or gaps that we
identified etc...).   


( I started an email chain with the members only who had
concerns/suggestions about the disconnection of the figures/models in the
draft to avoid sending unwanted emails to others. I thought to return the
discussions back to the group now that Manfred and others have volunteered
to review the draft as well).

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Berg-Cross [mailto:gbergcross@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:08 PM
To: Renato Iannella
Cc: Mandana Sotoodeh; Hillman Mitchell; rebecca_curzon@us.ibm.com
Subject: Further comments on Figure 1, UML model sand phased framework

Renato suggested:

> We can "drop" Figure 1 or not call it a model ?

My 2 cents is that  I think that we can do what Figure 1 tries to do
by discussing the subject areas that make up the domain in a
relatively informal way.  This gives us some freedom to introduce the
domain and some core concepts. We can use the UML models to be more
formal about the subjects.  If we get around to the taxonomies and
ontologies we can be more formal still.


On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>
> On 28 Jan 2009, at 16:14, Gary Berg-Cross wrote:
>> Figure 1 is the one that I have the most difficulty
>> with, because it's "semantics" is rather scattered and informal.  We
>> should have a much better handle on the sub-types of the major
>> concepts (WHO, WHAT, WHERE, GOVERNANCE?).
> We can "drop" Figure 1 or not call it a model ?
> Cheers...  Renato Iannella

Gary Berg-Cross,Ph.D.
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Principal, EM&I Semantic Technology
Potomac, MD
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 01:47:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:02 UTC