W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > November 2003

RE: UDDI and semantics

From: Stephane Fellah <fellah@pcigeomatics.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:28:01 -0500
Message-ID: <8ED21571324EB145933ACCD22B86AC363C3FF9@bach.ncr.pcigeomatics.com>
To: "Paul Denning" <pauld@mitre.org>, "www-sws-ig" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
Cc: <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>


Farrukh Najmi sent this post today http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2003Nov/0133.html. Perhaps he has some additional links to existing work.

I tried one year ago during the OGC Web Services 1.2 Initiative, to come out with an partial ontology of ebXML registry model based on RDFS as a proof of concept. The model has been developed with Protégé (prior its support of OWL). The ontology is very rough because it is was developed at the time I was learning more about ontology, so forgive me if the model does not make sense in some part. I would certainly produce a more robust model in OWL today. You can find it at: http://gws2.pcigeomatics.com/ebRIM. The RDFS schema is at: http://gws2.pcigeomatics.com/ebRIM/ebRIM.rdfs. An example of instance is at: http://gws2.pcigeomatics.com/ebRIM/ebRIM.rdf (with dummy data).

I've learned the following lessons:

1) I don't have to write any code or specific API to access the ebRIM modeled in RDF !  

2) Using RDF query languages such as the one in Protégé or RDQL, maps easily to the pre-canned query of ebRIM. 

3) It took me one hour to make the model and to get working queries on the model. The model was working immediately (building instances and search the model) along the introduction of the concepts in the knowledge base. 

4) ebRIM overlaps a lot with OWL construct. Associations are modeled by ObjectProperty, RegistryObject are Resource,ClassificationNode are OWL:Class.... InternationalString can be simplified by using the standard RDF construct xml:lang (used for example in rdf:label and rdf:comment).  My conclusion is that using OWL is more adequate and expressive than ebXML constructs. ebXML Business specific objects such as CollaborationProfile, ebXML Message concepts should be expressed in term of OWL concept and properties and avoid duplicating constructs existing in OWL.

5) Search are done on association name which do not have a unique id in ebXML. This is not compatible with RDF approach. I don't know if this has been fixed since...

I would be more than delighted that ebRIM is using OWL as a fundation for the registry because it will simplify the complexity of the model and will ease the integration with other registry and semantic web technologies.

Best regards
Stephane Fellah
Senior Software Engineer
PCI Geomatics
490, Boulevard St Joseph
Hull, Quebec
Canada J8Y 3Y7
Tel: 1 819 770 0022 Ext. 223
Fax 1 819 770 0098
Visit our web site:  www.pcigeomatics.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Denning [mailto:pauld@mitre.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 12:52 PM
To: Stephane Fellah; www-sws-ig
Subject: RE: UDDI and semantics

At 12:31 PM 2003-11-19, Stephane Fellah wrote:
>I would go a little further in your initiative by developing a ontology 
>for the UDDI concepts such as Tmodel, Bindings,.. ebXML seems also to 
>take this path.

Any pointers to the ebXML work?

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 14:28:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:32:43 UTC