W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2001

Re: Use case categories - 1st cut (action due by Thurs)

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 16:20:26 -0800
Message-ID: <3C0EB9C9.42D7F547@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
CC: hendler@cs.umd.edu, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
i dont know that i have the "answer" but i have a few thoughts.

 - i agree with jeff that contradiction/inconsistencies is a requirement for
interoperability   however it is really a requirement of any application that
wants to do any kind of verification and/or inference.  this would include
services applications.
i think contradiction detection is more like search in that it is a technical
issue that would be needed across most applications.

- it feels to me like the first 2 categories jim (and later jeff) suggested
are different from the next 1 or two categories.  It seems to me that
basically any web application will need to address issues of content
interoperability  thus topic 3 is also an area that will be addressed across
all applications.  I would claim that content interoperability is more a
"technical issue" as i interpret jim's use of the phrase rather than an
application category.

Jeff Heflin wrote:

> I think we can divide the use cases into three classes:
>
> 1) Web services
> 2) Information management (this includes archives, catalogs, large data
> sets, etc.)
> 3) Content interoperability
>
> Note that I left out Jim's fourth category adapation of content to
> user/device. I think that this is really just a form of dealing with
> content interoperability. As I see it, the content exists in some form
> (ontology), and needs to be translated to another form (ontology) for
> use by a different user or device. Thus this is about the
> interoperability of content.
>
> Real time/sensors (the remainder of Jim's fourth category) seems to me
> to be closely related to web services. For example, Ned Smith described
> a use case in which a sensor is embedded in a network and interacts with
> other devices in the network. I think this is analagous to agents using
> and providing services to other agents. Sensors may also fit under
> content interoperability, particularly if you're dealing with sensors
> that have different ontologies.
>
> Conceptual open-hypermedia seems to me to fit best under my information
> managment category. From what I understand in Nick Gibbins' recent
> message, it is a technique for locating information in large data
> sources.
>
> Finally, I think that condradiction/inconsistencies is really a
> requirement of content interoperability, and not a use case in its own
> right. When we integrate heterogeneous content, then we need a means for
> detecting and resolving inconsistencies.
>
> Any comments/thoughts?
>
> Jeff Heflin
> Lehigh University
>
> Jim Hendler wrote:
> >
> > WOW-Gers
> >
> >   I have taken a stab at a categorization of the use cases - I find 3
> > natural categories, 1 almost a natural category (two ideas that might
> > be related, but don't fit totally) and only a couple of loose ends I
> > could not figure out exactly where to fit.  In addition, some
> > technical issues that might cross cut seem to come out.  There are
> > listed below.
> >   I would be happy if we could end up with 4 total groups -- winnowing
> > my 4 categories down to 3, and developing the "cross cutting
> > technologies" to become more focused (to be the base for the sort of
> > "requirements" Peter Patel-Schneider argued for earlier)
> >
> >   Please discuss and let's see if we can resolve by Thurs.
> >    Jim H
> >
> > ==========
> > [Note WOL is only an acronym for Web Ontology Language at this point-
> > does not represent commitment to this name]
> >
> > Use cases - rough categorization proposal:
> >
> > 1) Web Services
> > WSDL is only a starting place, seems to stress interconnection, but
> > not content.  WOL has potential to be used for better advertising
> > (via hierarchy/classification), for connecting advertisements to
> > ontologies, and for exploring the compositionality of services.
> >
> > 2) Archives/CatalogsLarge data (or image) sets/web site management
> > All of these areas focus on the use of ontologies in the management
> > of large scale information sources.  Includes need for matching,
> > classification, default reasoning.  "Traditional" metadata (i.e.
> > document markup) would fall in this category.
> >
> > 3) Content Interoperability (a/k/a/ agent markup)
> > RDF has advantage over XML in allowing easy merging of content found
> > on different sites/resources, and the use of the combined sources.
> > Use cases include linking of databases (DB schemas), coupling data to
> > pages, linking instance data to ontologies.  Also allows linking of
> > ontology to ontology for mapping of vocabulary, etc.
> >
> > 4) Adaptation of content to user/device (real time/sensors?)
> > Use of ontologies to help determine what info to show to whom when,
> > or to be the information shown (i.e.  in PalmDAML the user can browse
> > the semantics separate from the source pages).  The real-time and
> > embedded sensor area seems to fit in best here - but I admit I'm
> > pushing a little.
> >
> > Loose ends:
> >   open hypermedia
> >   contradiction/inconsistencies
> >
> > Technical issues that could be address in some or all
> >   versioning
> >   ontology-based search
> >   domain-mapping/ontology linking (how much is commited to by a link)
> >   ontology querying
> >   rapid creation of large ontologies ?
> >
> > --
> > Professor James Hendler                           hendler@cs.umd.edu
> > Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies     301-405-2696
> > Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.    301-405-6707 (Fax)
> > AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland            College Park, MD 20742
> > http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler

--
 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705
0941
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2001 19:16:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:46 GMT