RE: [dcml-frame] Ontology and other DCML spec questions

Andre,

 

Allow 
me to expand a bit on your comments, below.

 

Fred

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Kramer 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 
  5:37 AM

  

  
 

  
- 
  The ability of semantic Web technologies to effect translations to other 
  concrete data representations and languages is mentioned in the spec several 
  times but no examples are given. Would this be a way to address some of Fred's 
  issues? We would provide both ontology for model definition and exchange and 
  specify (automated) mappings to/from "object oriented" data models and 
  schemas.

  
[FAC] Data transformation is an established technology for EAI 
  (Enterprise Application Integration) asynchronous message based exchanges, ETL 
  (Extract Transform Load) for feeding data warehouses, and EII (Enterprise 
  Information Integration) for access to heterogeneous databases through a 
  common schema.  I suggest that DCML should leverage these technologies 
  rather than try to exploit an emerging technology 
  (ontologies).

  
  

  
- The rules section of the 
  spec is currently AWOL. Seems to me that this may be some of the "teeth" that 
  Fred identified as missing. Here "Policy" specification would be a desirable 
  goal, rather than implementation level rules. If DCML had a policy/rule 
  language specified, that manipulated both the data center model and (through 
  the model) the real world, then its usefulness would be increased 
  tremendously.

  
[FAC] I'm not sure what the 
  expectations are for rules, but again DCML should leverage existing 
  work.  OMG is in the final stages of defining Business Semantics of 
  Business Rules that is intended to define a standard form for business rules 
  expressed by business people, and to define a mechanism for expression of 
  these rules with alternative vocabularies (e.g., different natural 
  languages).  OMG is also in the process of defining Production Rules 
  Representation, for expression of rules that are executed by a rule 
  engine.

  
 

  
- Events seems critical to 
  data center manipulation. Should we include a template section for event 
  types, event routing / transform "deployment"? 

  
[FAC]  This and files 
  for deployment, as I see it, should be the primary focus of 
  specifications.  This is where interoperability 
  happens.