[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Peter,
Perfect follow-on - see my short notes below.
Thanks, DW
==================================
Quoting "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@STJUDE.ORG>:
Interesting. So my earlier response to Bruce Cox's "With XML Schema
data typing, followed by Schematron, what would come next to cover the
residue?" query should have included:
"Perhaps a standard for combining validation rules into a hierarchy (ala
CAM?), or some kind
of generalized Ontological approach (ala CAM?)?"
>>>> Yes!
I didn't realize CAM was treading into the Ontology world also. That
raises the question of relationships to OWL or perhaps why CAM doesn't
use OWL? However, your earlier comments on CAM being human readable
perhaps explain the latter question...
>>>> Well almost. The genesis for CAM really came before the foundation work on
OWL came out. Right now we're waiting to see how OWL and Registry plays out
itself. The OASIS Registry Semantic Content Management team is investigating
this in detail. ebXML registry really is an ideal tuple-store, so cool things
are emerging. We're right now also working on noun definitions for use with
registry. Once we have some real vocabularies into this testbed - we can begin
to see how this shakes out. I certainly see the potential for enhanced machine
based transaction handling and mapping.
But for now simple is good. Just building CAM templates and getting that in
place - positions implementations to be able to leverage these other peices as
they are refined and perfected.
Thanks, DW
|
