Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Peter, Perfect follow-on - see my short notes below. Thanks, DW ================================== Quoting "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>: 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
|
