- From: Stuart Naylor <indtec@eircom.net>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:35:31 +0100
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <DFEDIAMBMMNMHKCCJJBLCELOCFAA.indtec@eircom.net>
With so much mention of DAML+OIL I must ask is anyone out there providing Ontologies with a similar method to the ebXML standard. From my perspective the ebXML standard fails with the usual defined in concrete 'It Shall be so' schema but there methods of business profiles are very good. I just wondered if there are any or many RDF ontologies / taxonomy out there and how far away we are from the inference of one business process to another. -----Original Message----- From: Stuart Naylor [mailto:indtec@eircom.net] Sent: 17 April 2001 15:31 To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org Subject: RE: Semantic API Obviously I nicked this from the ebXML standard http://www.ebxml.org/ to get a full overview. Business Process and Business Document Analysis Overview 12 Copyright C ebXML 2001. All Rights Reserved. 7 Business Process Modeling 284 7.1 Overview 285 Business process models define how business processes are described. Business processes 286 represent the "verbs" of electronic business and can be represented using modeling tools. The 287 specification for business process definition enables an enterprise to express its business 288 processes so that they are understandable by other enterprises. This enables the integration of 289 business processes within an enterprise or between enterprises. 290 Business process models specify interoperable business processes that allow business partners to 291 collaborate. While business practices vary from one organization to another, most activities can be 292 decomposed into business processes that are more generic to a specific type of business. This 293 analysis, utilizing business modeling, will identify business processes and business information 294 metamodels that can likely be standardized. The ebXML approach looks for standard reusable 295 components from which to construct interoperable processes and components. 296 7.2 Business Process and Information Metamodel 297 The Metamodel is a description of business semantics that allows Trading Partners to capture the 298 details for a specific business scenario using a consistent modeling methodology. A Business 299 Process describes in detail how Trading Partners take on roles, relationships and responsibilities to 300 facilitate interaction with other Trading Partners in shared Business Process. The interaction 301 between roles takes place as a choreographed set of Business Transactions. Each Business 302 Transaction is expressed as an exchange of electronic Business Documents. The sequence of the 303 exchange is defined by the Business Process, messaging and security considerations. Business 304 Documents are composed from re-useable business information components. At a lower level, 305 Business Processes can be composed of re-useable Common Business Processes, and Business 306 Information Objects can be composed of re- useable Business Information Objects that may be 307 composed of core components and domain components. 308 The Metamodel supports requirements, analysis and design viewpoints that provide a set of 309 semantics (vocabulary) for each viewpoint and forms the basis of specification of the semantics 310 ebXML BP/CC Analysis Team March 2001 and artifacts that are required to facilitate business process and information integration and 311 interoperability. 312 An additional view of the Metamodel, The Specification Schema, is also provided to support the 313 direct specification of the nominal set of elements necessary to configure a runtime system in order 314 to execute a set of ebXML business transactions. By drawing out modeling elements from several 315 of the other views, the Specification Schema forms a semantic subset of the Metamodel. 316 The Specification Schema is available in two stand-alone representations, a UML profile, and a 317 DTD. Figure 7.2-1 shows the high-level elements of The Specification Schema. 318 I really liked the spec until schema started to raise it's ugly head. The ebXML standard is very good but it is still a explicit profiling mechanism. Then the Web god doth speak http://www.scientificamerican.com/2001/0501issue/0501berners-lee.html Ontologies Of course, this is not the end of the story, because two databases may use different identifiers for what is in fact the same concept, such as zip code. A program that wants to compare or combine information across the two databases has to know that these two terms are being used to mean the same thing. Ideally, the program must have a way to discover such common meanings for whatever databases it encounters. A solution to this problem is provided by the third basic component of the Semantic Web, collections of information called ontologies. In philosophy, an ontology is a theory about the nature of existence, of what types of things exist; ontology as a discipline studies such theories. Artificial-intelligence and Web researchers have co-opted the term for their own jargon, and for them an ontology is a document or file that formally defines the relations among terms. The most typical kind of ontology for the Web has a taxonomy and a set of inference rules. The taxonomy defines classes of objects and relations among them. For example, an address may be defined as a type of location, and city codes may be defined to apply only to locations, and so on. Classes, subclasses and relations among entities are a very powerful tool for Web use. We can express a large number of relations among entities by assigning properties to classes and allowing subclasses to inherit such properties. If city codes must be of type city and cities generally have Web sites, we can discuss the Web site associated with a city code even if no database links a city code directly to a Web site. Inference rules in ontologies supply further power. An ontology may express the rule "If a city code is associated with a state code, and an address uses that city code, then that address has the associated state code." A program could then readily deduce, for instance, that a Cornell University address, being in Ithaca, must be in New York State, which is in the U.S., and therefore should be formatted to U.S. standards. The computer doesn't truly "understand" any of this information, but it can now manipulate the terms much more effectively in ways that are useful and meaningful to the human user. With ontology pages on the Web, solutions to terminology (and other) problems begin to emerge. The meaning of terms or XML codes used on a Web page can be defined by pointers from the page to an ontology. Of course, the same problems as before now arise if I point to an ontology that defines addresses as containing a zip code and you point to one that uses postal code. This kind of confusion can be resolved if ontologies (or other Web services) provide equivalence relations: one or both of our ontologies may contain the information that my zip code is equivalent to your postal code. Our scheme for sending in the clowns to entertain my customers is partially solved when the two databases point to different definitions of address. The program, using distinct URIs for different concepts of address, will not confuse them and in fact will need to discover that the concepts are related at all. The program could then use a service that takes a list of postal addresses (defined in the first ontology) and converts it into a list of physical addresses (the second ontology) by recognizing and removing post office boxes and other unsuitable addresses. The structure and semantics provided by ontologies make it easier for an entrepreneur to provide such a service and can make its use completely transparent. It is very hard to explain relevance because it is totally dependent on the quality of ontology references. We have two applications each with a internal application ontology both reference external more generic ontologies which hopefully at some converge on a singular ontology reference hopefully at the first hop. Relevance is a reverse of TBLs Search agents where we know where the data is we just have to find the question. Like the command line parameter TRACERT [DNSNAME] a list of each hop from one router to the next across the net is displayed in order of occurrence. With two destinations and a common source I guess this is what I would call a expression of relevance. This is about as far as I have got with my 'Chess' engine as a lateral hop is exponential to a vertical and I am having much more fun learning the finer points of gambits. The AI is quite easy it's the construction of the business process and data ontology's that is causing me the headaches. -----Original Message----- From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com Sent: 17 April 2001 10:00 To: indtec@eircom.net Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org Subject: Re: Semantic API > [...] fresh thoughts! > What I have seen so far from anyone out the is still explicit declaration as > opposed to inference and selection by relevance. what do you mean with *selection by relevance* ? -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ -----Original Message----- From: Stuart Naylor [mailto:indtec@eircom.net] Sent: 17 April 2001 08:42 To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org Cc: me@aaronsw.com; johan.hjelm@nrj.ericsson.se; Dan Brickley; Danny Ayers Subject: Semantic API Semantics and RDF it's exciting stuff isn't it. I am going to post a follow on to Zen & Chinwag as if I did get a answer then I missed it but that wouldn't be unusual. I am firstly going to explain the background of why I require a API based on RDF Ontology's. As a App developer and integrator I work across various industries. Currently a large proportion of my time is devoted to Legal concentric activities. The Legal arena has a representation through WWW.LegalXML.org. The Legal industry has a large amount of Legal specifics to it's IT requirements but like us all it has some very generic processes. A Legal Office could be defined as. Legal Accounts, Document Automation, Time & Billing, Document Management, Case Management, Knowledge Management. The vendors comprise of a cottage industry which is a blend of grey 'All in One' and best of breed applications. The actual integration of a Legal solution is a absolute nightmare which often results in the choice of a 'All in One' application which often has dictates to a localisation as narrow as 'London' or 'California'. My initial thoughts where of a Com, Corba, Dcom with standards in the vain of MAPI. Then I started looking at the possibilities of XML. Initially XML was very exciting until I started parsing documents and exchanging data and was gob smacked at the actual overheads of schema handling. I believe various industries have got a little carried away with bloat schemas to represent common data structures. Also I have a problem with schema because of the fact they dictate that this is a entity data structure. Which if I look at application design for reasons of functionality data structures are never the same even though the do exactly the same job. I believe the two problems above have very strong parallels across many industries but back to my cause. Back to 'Chinwag' which I choose that name because as a solution it will be the last time your will hear it. Chinwag is an idea for application to application interoperability without the need of formal schema. It's reasoning comes from the way many systems work with closed sensitive data, is that the very idea that a XML repository in it's own right will not work. This is due to the fact that many systems know exactly what the require and are returned the bare minimum to satisfy that requirement. Business data will never be open as it has value and unless their is a incentive you will not be able to receive it. So my logic takes me back to the API which will return fragments of data on the satisfaction of the calling parameters. The problem with a API call is the presumption that you know what it does and you know what it returns. So this is where ontology's come in, business process ontology's to be precise. With my dislike for schema I began to wonder if a different representation of data would be viable. My analogy to this is that a schema is just the company handbook to data and like a experienced worker who knows their workplace processes they don't need the handbook (schema). So if you had a application ontology that describes it's data elements so that they are known and positioned by context then it is feasible that no schema is required. You might see where I am going but through the Semantic web a application will define it's context through a series of referenced ontology's. Application Data Ontology -> Application Process Ontology -> Industry Specific Process Ontology -> Process Ontology and so on until there is enough to provide data element comprehension and context. I will not go into the topics of how two applications could map themselves to a source of common context, methods of expressing API functionality... What I have seen so far from anyone out the is still explicit declaration as opposed to inference and selection by relevance. So all I need is a plethora of well thought ontologies which link by there context. If anyone has any info on any working groups at providing self comunicating apps or would like to get something more concrete please email me. Also I have many further ideas on this but for the sake of brevity the above will do for now. -----Original Message----- From: Stuart Naylor [mailto:indtec@eircom.net] Sent: 13 April 2001 12:04 To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org Subject: Zen & Chinwag (This was for LegalXML.Org but please comment) There seems to be quite a lot of movement in RPC calls for devices. I posted quite a lot of bumf to the discussion forum Keywords: - Jini, UDDI, SOAP, UPnP and their surrounding technologies. Which even if you don't agree with what I am about to say they are will worth a look in the context of LegalXML. Also there seems to be a lot of postings about TBL's Semantic Web AKA Net Gods tenth commandment. The web was there to some extent before TBL and I prefer to think of him as the gardener rather than the creator. This is because the web has this strange but almost organic growth to it. I see the Semantic web as a great prophesy to provide the next generation of the web as a huge monolithic open knowledge service. It tackles the web as a whole as opposed to many of the above technologies, which make it a collection of many mini services. I also think that he is correct but like so many of the devout they can take things out of context. The Semantic web will be a revolution to creating a huge open knowledge store with the emphasis on open. In the context of Legal though I would say without trying to offend anyone this is not the case. Intellectual property rights and the whole concept of legal jargon, precedents and so on places two legal bodies always in the position where any exchange is the minimum legal requirement to satisfy both parties. As you will tell I have no legal experience what so ever but I would so the interchange of legal information is anything but Semantic and Open. May be someone would like to quantify how wrong I am there, but anyway. What I believe is that business information is not Semantic at least not until we have been paid for it. I started knocking TBL on purpose because I am now going to have a go at the very idea of LegalXML in its present form. Please bear in mind that these statements are purely to form a discussion and without a doubt TBL does have green fingers just like the work that has been undertaken by LegalXML.org. There seems to be a presumption that a given Legal scenario for example a court filing will be able to be expressed in a defined structure. That Legal XML will lay down the protocol law and as long as we adhere we will reach communication Nirvana. This provides problems with the freedom of speech of applications where an application may find a better method of expression but have no method of translation. I don't want to try and express the meaning of life but I am quite prepared to say I had a good day. Like that sentence we need systems that can provide a decomposition of an entity into what we are prepared to exchange. What would be interesting is not only at a B2B scenario that applications themselves would interact just as we do. It's our first day and we get the instructions there is the accounts dept, photocopier, your desk, tea break at 10.30, goodbye. In one of my previous emails about John McClure's http://www.dataconsortium.org/namespace/DCD100.xml I stated I couldn't understand it's use, but I have seen the light. So here goes for my theoretical XML protocol 'Chinwag' the purpose of Chinwag is to allow two bodies to have a discourse to ascertain there relevance and have no need of any formal industry specific XML structure. When we give two applications there first day at work they need to how relevant they are and how they will communicate so the only formal constructs of Chinwag are WHORU, IAM, and THISISME. The legal case management app and accounts app are introduced a polite pause and the legal case management app goes first 'WHORU'. 'IAM' financial [parents: #Legal, #App Vendor Semantic] GL, Billings. 'IAM' cms [parents: #Legal, #App Vendor Semantic] Client, Case, PIM. John and http://www.dataconsortium.org/namespace/DCD100.xml I now see as very important because of the following: - possession [parents: #Right , #Legal ] The holding, control, or custody of property for one's own use, either as the owner or person with another right. possession [parents: #Poltergeist, #Supernatural] The holding, control, or custody of one, either as the owner or person without right. Pure example stuff but this is where TBL's Semantics comes in where it is the web itself as like the DNS (Domain Name System) the hops or metrics between those two means the application can deduce that maybe, similar but your coming from Alaska on that one. The next conversation is 'THISISME' at this point a full API call list is presented with the XML fragment that represents the return data but the most important is a by element reference to its own application definition. Through the context of Semantics and the approximation of definitions a protocol can be deduced without the need of formal schema declaration. I am working on 'Chinwag' at this moment the actual protocol is very simple but it is the AI required for a demonstration. So far I have dissected a 'Chess' AI engine because I am trying to enable the functionality for scenario's where a single API call will not satisfy a transaction but a series of calls (moves in my case) will. So it's Pawns away for me at the moment but I think John McClure's DCD100.xml is a very interesting proposition but instead of describing human Legal keywords provide context, taxonomy of the components of legal entities. I believe LegalXML should be defining the elements in context but not the structure. I know the meaning of life it's 42, the problem is what is the question.
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2001 03:42:27 UTC