RE: [ebcore] Semantic alignment support in CPPA

I will be a few minutes late, please go ahead without me. I 
will join as soon as I can, the number is set up.

 

Kathryn Breininger 

 

From: Pim van der Eijk 
[mailto:] 
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:21 
PM
To: 
Subject: RE: [ebcore] 
Semantic alignment support in CPPA

 

As input to this agenda item, we mentioned preparing 
(listing) some sample use cases of additional types of documentation associated 
with a document exchange.  

 

Here 
is a link to a forwarded email from Cristiano Novelli.  

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebcore-cppa/201002/msg00010.html

He mentions a few examples of such additional documentation 
types, including constrained schemas, but also other types of associated files, 
such as human-readable documentation and stylesheets (e.g. to visualize the XML 
documents).  There is also a proposed CPA extension 
element.

 

An interesting recent use case are the UBL customization 
guidelines:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/guidelines/UBL-Customization1.0.pdf

It mentions a few types of constraint specification 
document types: customized XML schemas, Xpath, genericode code lists and the new 
context/value assocation spec of the codelists TC and Schematron. I guess 
CPA should be able to reference all of those. (The CVA is described 
at:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/codelist/cd02prd02-ContextValueAssociation-1.0/doc/context-value-association.html)

 

I 
proposed a similar way of constraining XSDs for business documents as 
application of AFDD, in a document I posted to the former CPA TC. It worked with 
CPA or WSDL by editing the value of the location attribute of NameSpaceSupported 
element. And the referenced XSDs could be "edited" in the same process based on 
supplied agreed parameters.

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=30487

 

Dale mentioned the 
EDIFACT IMPDEF message, which can be used to transfer (free text) implementation 
information about a message exchange. Here is a link to its 
definition:

http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/d08b/trmd/impdef_c.htm

 

David is the expert 
on CAM, I'll leave it to him to describe how it fits in this 
discussion.

 

Other examples of requirements I've come across to add 
constraints to exchange agreements are explanations for what purpose the 
provided information may be used, a maximum period of data retention (e.g. for 
privacy-related information), etc.  I guess for the moment these are all 
special types of documentation at best ..

 

Pim

 

 

 

From: David RR Webber (XML) 
[mailto:] 
Sent: 02 March 2010 17:52
To: 
Bahareh Heravi
Cc: ; 
Moberg Dale; Farrukh Najmi; 
Subject: RE: 
[ebcore] Semantic alignment support in CPPA

Bahareh,

 

This sounds like the right approach vis CPPA.  The OASIS BCM work is 
actually applicable too.  The "Lubash Pyramid" is a nice way to view the 
ontology.

 

The SET TC work on OWL is focused on the actual exchange payload content 
and alignment at that level.  The CAM template offers a "bridge" between 
the CPPA and the payloads.  At some point I have down to generate the OWL 
that SET is using from the CAM template definition - just needs a little XSLT 
magic...

Thanks, DW

 

 

  
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: 
  [ebcore] Semantic alignment support in CPPA
From: "Bahareh Heravi" 
  <>
Date: Tue, March 02, 2010 7:59 
  am
To: "Moberg Dale" <>, "Farrukh 
  Najmi"
<>, 
  <>
Cc: 
  <>

Dear 
  Farrukh,

Nice to see you here again, I trust you are well.

It 
  might be of interest to you that I am developing an Ontology for ebBP as a 
  part of my PhD project, with the aim of Semantic (Standard based) 
  Interoperation. I am doing it in collaboration with Stephen Green and Fujitsu 
  Labs of Europe. 

Best regards
Bahareh 
  
----------------------------------------------------

Bahareh R. 
  Heravi
PhD Researcher
Department of Information Systems & 
  Computing
Brunel University
Uxbridge, Middlesex, London, UB8 3PH, United 
  Kingdom.
Web: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~cspgbrh

-----Original 
  Message-----
From: Moberg Dale [mailto:]
Sent: 
  Tue 2/23/2010 4:39 PM
To: Farrukh Najmi; 
  
Subject: RE: [ebcore] Semantic alignment 
  support in CPPA

Hi Farrukh,

The OWL query support definitely 
  sounds relevant.

The SET TC has also developed OWL ontologies for 
  UNCEFACT CCTS that are
relevant.

David Webber can explain their 
  progress so far to us, and relate it to
his CAM versions of similar 
  functionality. The SET TC has actually been
more ambitious than developing 
  support for simple semantic alignment
constraints/rules and are seeking 
  automatic mapping between diverse
message sets (UBL and GS1, for example) 
  that each have a CC
"conformance." 

CPPA just needs to have a survey 
  of existing approaches so that for
version 3.0, suitable containers can be 
  defined to organize the
information that constitutes the agreement on 
  "semantic" conventions
(philosophically viewed, these conventions will of 
  course really just be
more agreements about syntactic rules that we think 
  of as constraining
the intended semantics).

Your explanation of the 
  examples and maybe how to reference the
information (or regrep query for 
  it!) would I think be very useful.

Thanks,

Dale 
  Moberg

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:] 
  
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:13 AM
To: 
  
Subject: [ebcore] Semantic alignment support in 
  CPPA

Hi Dale,

Can you tell me what I need to read for 
  background regarding semantic 
alignment support in CPPA.
in RegRep 4 we 
  have an OWL profile 2.0 which supports semantic alignment

via the 
  RegRep query interface.

An example use case in weather domain that I am 
  familiar with is:

Find all datasets that have a dataset field matching 
  specified fieldname

OR any other field name that is semantically 
  similar to specified 
fieldname WHERE similarity threshold may be specified 
  as a float value 
between 0.0 (no similarity) and 1.0 (completely 
  synonymity).

The capability uses domain ontologies along with alignment 
  ontologies to

determine similar terms.

Does this sort of 
  functional sound relevant?

On 02/22/2010 05:05 PM, Moberg Dale 
  wrote:
> Agenda items addition:
>
> semantic alignment 
  support in CPPA. reuse ebBP type? is anything from
> registry relevant? 
  what in CCTS and related repositories might be
> referenced as part of a 
  documentation for semantic agreements? are
> implementation guides 
  needed? test constraints (like xslt xquery
> schematron or cam documents 
  that in effect constitute agreements on
some
> aspect of 
  semantics?
>
> how can all these varied materials be documented 
  consisely and
> accurately?
>
> 

-- 
  
Regards,
Farrukh

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To 
  unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates 
  this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
  

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To 
  unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates 
  this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
  

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To 
  unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates 
  this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates 
this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: 
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php