[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Cursor on Target
Not so oddly, that is roughly the structuralists vs the free traders idee yet again. My sense is that the semantic processors are initially humans-in-the-loop who use some ontology notation and post to thesauri after they are vetted. Over time, discovery gets easier but also over time, someone deep in the trench starts improving the spelling and noise creeps in. Entropy is hot pie left in an open window and cold beer behind the glass. The information with the highest value tells you to exchange their positions or consume them now. len From: Ken North [mailto:kennorth@s...] > Any clue for where one can get the DTD or Schema for that? > I googled it but find mostly other referential articles. This document doesn't provide details about the Cursor on Target XML schema, but it discusses how the schema was used to develop several ontologies. Figure 9 is the Airspace Ontology and Figure 11 is the Target Ontology. http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/resources/NetcentricSemanticLinkingMTR Rev1.doc > The concept is good: standardize only the essential core or > shareable elements (what, where, when) and reuse that across > the entire C2 network. A key decision is how you standardize on core data elements. Mike Gorman discussed this in an article for TDAN about two different approaches to supplying metadata to the DoD Metadata Registry. One approach (Tag and Post) was explained by a MITRE slide presentation. Mike Gorman commented about the approaches to standization and the Cursor On Target schema: "On this slide, there is an intersection among all the systems called CoT, that is, Cursor On Target. This is a stylized term for an XML schema that is to represent a single data interface for all the systems, i.e., TCT-F, TACP, TADIL, DCGS, TBMCS, and FMSS. For such intersections to exist semantic agreement or understanding must exist for: Units of Measure, Formats, Reference Systems, and Naming Conventions There is no explanation of the processes, policy, infrastructure, or whatever that will cause the semantic agreement or understanding to happen. Presumably, there will be some processor that will deduce and know how XML schemas are related one to the other. Presumably, some unknown infrastructure and/or process will know that the same names with different meanings are different, and/or that different names with the same meanings are the same. Presumably, there is sufficient precision, scale, and transformation processes necessary to transform data of one type to data of another type without loss of meaning or precision." ... The final slide, 6, Alternative Course of Action-Phase 2, suggests strategies that have nothing to do with any of the real Net-Centric Data Goals. Rather, this slide depicts that metadata should be posted to catalogs. Missing from both Side 5 and Slide 6 is any requirement for or any basis to support the ability for XML schemas to be able to interoperate. Each XML schema will thus become a Tower of Babel. And in the DoD Metadata Registry there will be hundreds of thousands of such towers. How all this will be interrelated, integrated, disambiguated and managed is not addressed in any way in this presentation." http://www.tdan.com/i030hy01.htm
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|