Carl:
I don't want to be picky, just to get the picture
clear.
Is the SemConMan SC an actual TC sub-committee or
just a "working group" of the ebXML Registry TC? It is simply not on the radar
anywhere. I ask because this could be a valid case for bringing it up to a full
TC: they will be those (myself included) who would be interested in SemConMan,
but not 'just' the ebXML registry TC.
In this circulstance, there would be valuable
cross-over with the broader TM-PubSubj objectives
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl
Mattocks
To: Patrick Durusau
Cc: Peter Brown ; ; Bernard Vatant ; tm-pubsubj
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: [tm-pubsubj] Range of Application
<quote who="Patrick Durusau">
>
Peter,
>
> Peter Brown wrote:
>> Hi Carl, Hi
Bernard....
>>
>> <quote who="Carl
Mattocks">
>> >Acknowledged - the link is for OASIS
members.
>> >
>> >Below is an extract from
the charter.
>> ><charter-extract>
>>
>The Semantic Content Management SC was established by the OASIS
>>
ebXML...
>> </quote>
>> Unfortunately, the link is even
for the TC administrator only, not even
>> OASIS members...
>>
BTW: the OASIS members area doesn't show *any* reference at all
>> to
SemConManSC of the ebXML Registry....???
We have requested that web
access will be made easier via a link from
OASIS list of TC's
>>
I would be interested in more detail, particularly as there is
always
>> the danger of "scope creep": although there are plenty of
things that do
>> need to be done, "our" TC is about Published
Subjects, not about
>> semantic interoperability through public
registration of ontologies and
>> ontological constructs...The SCMSC
sounds closer to the "SeeBIG" TC
>> idea....
>>
> Was
not trying to suggest "scope creep", just an observation that
> Published
Subjects could be used by a number of different
technologies.
>
Agreed - the members of the SCMSC would probably
encourage to facilitate
semantic interoperability through public registration
of ontologies and
ontological
constructs.
>>
>> <quote who="Patrick
Durusau">
>> >
>> > What I am thinking is
that the definitions should be as generic to
>> the
>>
> general concept of PSIs as possible so as to allow for
future
>> > deliverables to address the needs to topic maps
and other
>> technologies
>> > (or the development of
deliverables by other communities for their
>> own
>>
> purposes).
>> </quote>.
>> Is this not the tail
wagging the dog? Surely business drivers will lead
>> to definition of
general concepts and requirements, and *then* such
>> generic
definitions can be "narrowed" to specific TM
implementations...?
>>
>
> No because no matter how urgent
a business driver may be, it cannot
> supply the intellectual content that
underlies the general concepts and
> terminology. Such drivers may well
influence how soon such concepts and
> terminology are narrowed for
specfic cases but that is a different issue.
>
> We may well be
talking about the same thing in slightly different ways.
> What I think is
important is that the concepts and terminology be
> specific enough to be
useful but not limited to a particular set of
> uses. Able to be driven to
narrower cases by more specific business
> drivers if you
like.
>
Acknowledged - I do consider that PSI's have the potential
to add value
many forms of semantic structures.
--
Carl Mattocks
co-Chair OASIS ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC
CEO
CHECKMi
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com
Semantically Smart
Compendiums
(AOL) IM CarlCHECKMi
