Is there a need to augment the RIM with an ebXML Registry Ontology?

<ZA> Is there a need
to augment the RIM with an ebXML Registry 

Ontology? </ZA>

 

< Farrukh>What did you
mean by *AN* ebXML Registry Ontology?

 

I am assuming that RIM would
be extended to allow defining *ANY*) 

arbitrary ontology in a
manner similar to the current ability add 

arbitrary ClassificationSchemes.
Ontologys would essentially supercede 

ClassificationSchemes as a
better way to classify RegistryObjects. I  am 

further assuming that this
would be done by adding support in RIM for 

defining OWL ontologys.</Farrukh>

 

<ZA> I think of an
ebXML Registry Ontology as a knowledge-base for capturing the best practices
for using and deploying ebXML Registries.  I think of an ebXML Registry
Ontology/Knowledge-base as a way of capturing the decision making processing of
when and how best to utilize ebXML Registries. One of the common complaints
that I read about the ebXML family of standards is that it is too complicated too
utilize.  An ebXML Ontology could separate the complexity of implementation
from the complexity of usage.  An ebXML Registry knowledge-base could be
extended to cover things like, “how best to manage the services of
translators using XLIFF and an ebXML Registry?” or “how best to
manage transactions in the travel industry using XML vocabularies from the OTA
(Open Travel Alliance) and an ebXML Registry?” Once we have a core
ontology we can drive adoption based on the ebXML Registry’s ability
solve problems by removing the fear factor commonly cited today. </ZA>

 

 

Zachary Alexander

The IT Investment Architect 

ebTDesign LLC, (703) 283-4325

http://www.ebTDesign.com

http://www.p2pspeaker.com

http://www.p2peconomy.com