Re: Comments / Suggestions for the Interoperability Deliverable

Dear Tobias,

Thanks for the comment and suggestion. It seems to be a good idea for us 
to also discuss some possible options besides the one that we use in the 
interoperability framework. Indeed, what we are doing in the deliverable 
is to provide some simple and practical solutions, rather than doing 
research.

Best regards,
Jeff


Tobias Bürger wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> to pick up some aspects of the discussion from the list in [1]:
>
> do you think that it would make sense to include a general section on 
> how interoperability for metadata standards/vocabularies could be 
> achieved using semantic technologies?
>
> I can imagine five options:
> (1) Through standards + consensus building among the community
> (2) Building upon a core or foundational ontology like DOLCE, SUMO or 
> others and align voacbularies to them
> (3) Through mediation between vocabularies based on a central vocabulary
> (4) Through integration / harmonisation of vocabularies
> (5) Through mapping or matching between concepts
>
> I think the one that the XG goes for is (4), however it would be 
> valuable for the deliverable to shortly discuss pro/cons of the other 
> 4 options above. Yes, I know, that not every of these options is a 
> good option, but one could think of.
>
> But perhaps this part would be to theoretically as we want to 
> demonstrate practical things.
>
> Any thoughts / comments welcome!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tobias
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-mmsem/2007Mar/0033.html
>
> --________________________________________
> Tobias Bürger, http://www.deri.org
> skype: tobitrautich
>
>


-- 

Dr. Jeff Z. Pan (http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~jpan/)
Department of Computing Science, The University of Aberdeen

Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 10:58:14 UTC