[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Not so oddly, that is roughly the structuralists vs the free traders
idee yet again.
My sense is that the semantic processors are initially humans-in-the-loop
who use some ontology notation and post to thesauri after they are vetted.
Over time, discovery gets easier but also over time, someone deep in
the trench starts improving the spelling and noise creeps in.
Entropy is hot pie left in an open window and cold beer
behind the glass. The information with the highest
value tells you to exchange their positions or consume
them now.
len
From: Ken North [mailto:kennorth@sbcglobal.net]
> Any clue for where one can get the DTD or Schema for that?
> I googled it but find mostly other referential articles.
This document doesn't provide details about the Cursor on Target XML schema,
but
it discusses how the schema was used to develop several ontologies. Figure 9
is
the Airspace Ontology and Figure 11 is the Target Ontology.
http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/resources/NetcentricSemanticLinkingMTR
Rev1.doc
> The concept is good: standardize only the essential core or
> shareable elements (what, where, when) and reuse that across
> the entire C2 network.
A key decision is how you standardize on core data elements. Mike Gorman
discussed this in an article for TDAN about two different approaches to
supplying metadata to the DoD Metadata Registry.
One approach (Tag and Post) was explained by a MITRE slide presentation.
Mike
Gorman commented about the approaches to standization and the Cursor On
Target
schema:
"On this slide, there is an intersection among all the systems called CoT,
that
is, Cursor On Target. This is a stylized term for an XML schema that is to
represent a single data interface for all the systems, i.e., TCT-F, TACP,
TADIL,
DCGS, TBMCS, and FMSS. For such intersections to exist semantic agreement or
understanding must exist for:
Units of Measure,
Formats,
Reference Systems, and
Naming Conventions
There is no explanation of the processes, policy, infrastructure, or
whatever
that will cause the semantic agreement or understanding to happen.
Presumably,
there will be some processor that will deduce and know how XML schemas are
related one to the other. Presumably, some unknown infrastructure and/or
process
will know that the same names with different meanings are different, and/or
that
different names with the same meanings are the same. Presumably, there is
sufficient precision, scale, and transformation processes necessary to
transform
data of one type to data of another type without loss of meaning or
precision."
... The final slide, 6, Alternative Course of Action-Phase 2, suggests
strategies that have nothing to do with any of the real Net-Centric Data
Goals.
Rather, this slide depicts that metadata should be posted to catalogs.
Missing
from both Side 5 and Slide 6 is any requirement for or any basis to support
the
ability for XML schemas to be able to interoperate. Each XML schema will
thus
become a Tower of Babel. And in the DoD Metadata Registry there will be
hundreds
of thousands of such towers. How all this will be interrelated, integrated,
disambiguated and managed is not addressed in any way in this presentation."
http://www.tdan.com/i030hy01.htm
|
