Ron, Carl, <Fred>Wrt OWL/RDF, in my experience there are few non-academic souls on this earth that really comprehend those standards (so much the same like CCTS ;-). I am not one of them (yet). Personally, I would love to see convergence between the OWL/RDF ontology work and the CEFACT/OASIS Core Components work. As far as I understood though, OWL/RDF is mainly related to semi-structured data, while Core Components are applicable to very structured data (even an SAP system must understand it ;-).</Fred> <Ron>Since you say you "would love to see convergence between the OWL/RDF ontology work and the CEFACT/OASIS Core Components work" then perhaps you are open to the notion that the objects (BIEs) and properties (CCs) of CCTS can be represented in an ontology framework. If that is true, then perhaps we have a starting point for further discussion.</Ron> We sure have! I'd be very interested in it. Note however that in CCTS speak ABIE's represent the objects and ASBIE's and BBIE's the properties. The BIE-CC axle is the level of abstraction. <Carl>If you are open to this idea please help me produce a (storybook) use case that will be referenced by the ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC.</Carl> Carl, I am open to that idea. Any suggestions how to set up such storybook? <Ron>For the properties, if you start with the basic premise that Core Components are fundamentally basic data representation types (date, date time, amount, name, etc.) plus allowable specializations or extensions (e.g., cost amount, price amount, tax amount, first name, middle name, last name, etc.) those basic data representation types are the root or top of an ontology of Core Component types. The basic data representation types (date, amount, text, etc.) are the highest level of abstraction for the properties. Each basic data representation type is the foundation for its own ontology. For the objects, it becomes necessary to force BIEs to a sufficiently high level of abstraction that conceptually they become mutually exclusive concepts in the context of an enterprise. Some basic high level of abstraction objects applicable to any business enterprise include: Enterprise, Product, Document, Person, Process, Asset, etc. Each basic high level of abstraction object can also be subtyped and therefore each is the foundation of its own ontology. For example, Purchase Order Document, Work Order Document, Invoice Document, Contract Document, etc are all types of documents. I recommend that you look at http://www.ebxmlforum.org/articles/ebFor_20040306.html and also http://www.udef.org/specdoc/UDEFv1pt03-July-2003.htm for the complete list of basic data representation types (properties) and a candidate list of basic business enterprise objects. As suggested in the article, the UDEF tree structures could provide a ready made library of Core Components and BIEs. I am open to the idea of helping create a use case (storybook) referenced by the ebXML Registry Semantic Content SC.</Ron> Do have a look at the REA ontology (http://www.msu.edu/user/mccarth4/rea-ontology/), that is targeted to the application area of the exchange of economic values. In my opinion it is a good starting point as top-ontology. The key concepts in it are Agents, Resources, Commitments and Events. <Ron>How do you want to proceed?</Ron> I am open to any suggestion. Fred
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>