[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Approaches to Expanding the Semantics of a Community's Sel

• From: "Stephen Green" <stephengreenubl@g...>
• To: "Paul Tyson" <phtyson@s...>
• Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:59:33 +0000

It's not my work, but the OASIS UBL TC has on its Support Tools
page http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ubl-ssc
a link to a work which seems to be a little along the lines you suggest
being applied to comparing different customisations of the Universal Business
Language using OWL / RDF
http://www.srdc.metu.edu.tr/webpage/publications/2007/YarimaganDogac-UBLTranslationPaper.pdf

I have just considered applying RDF and maybe OWL to a more general
use case of 'test assertions' for any kind of IT software system but it is as
yet no more than a thought and a list mailing to the OASIS TAG TC which
is dealing with test assertions and their use for conformance testing, etc:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/200711/msg00016.html
My example considers UBL schemas but it makes sense that using RDF
would allow comparisons of graphs of different XML standards/vocabularies.

I hope to look into this a lot more and always felt that to properly handle
different customizations of the same language (in this case UBL) would
require use of ontologies. Now it's a matter of working out the details or
reusing the existing prior art where possible (and permitted by IPR).

Best regards

Stephen Green

On 22/11/2007, Paul Tyson <phtyson@s...> wrote:
> As Stephen Green mentioned in another reply, a promising approach goes
> through RDF. I recently stumbled onto this approach while working on a
> completely different problem, and I haven't worked out many details. I
> am interested to hear what other people are doing in this area.
>
> I focus on translating instances into RDF graphs. So far I've looked at
> the Infoset RDF (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset-rdfs), a simple
> late-bound vocabulary to describe the structure of an XML instance.  A
> trivial XSLT stylesheet will convert any XML instance to an RDF/XML
> representation of its infoset RDF graph. Then you can query or analyze
> it using RDF tools--for instance, a sparql query. You could even use the
> sparql CONSTRUCT query to do simple transformations of subgraph patterns.
>
> But, more to your use case.  Suppose you translated instances from two
> different communities into infoset RDF/XML.  Then you add assertions to
> state the conditions under which subgraphs from the different instances
> will be considered "the same". Simple ontology reasoners could produce
> merged output, or answer any questions you want to ask of the system.
> This is really just a sophisticated translation system, but it occurs
> more in the ontological layer than in the semantic and structural layers
> of XML.  And it seems like it would be more powerful because it can be
> augmented with assertions from any source.
>
> The reverse translation, from RDF to XML instance, would be only
> slightly more challenging.  A rough-and-ready approach would be to
> process XML sparql results using XSLT.  But a dedicated RDF application
> would be better.
>
> The late-bound infoset RDFS vocabulary will not be suitable for all
> cases.  It would be nice to have a standard early-bound infoset
> vocabulary that used the XML schema terms as an RDFS vocabulary (with
> prescribed transliteration where necessary).  Of course, it is trivial
> to convert between the two forms, but it seems best to have both forms
> standardized so applications can be developed using whichever one is
> most suitable.
>
> --Paul Tyson
>
> Costello, Roger L. wrote:
>
> >Hi Folks,
> >
> >I am documenting the different approaches for extending the semantics
> >of a community's tag-set. I seek your thoughts on this topic.
> >
> >Let me start with an example to illustrate what I mean by "extending
> >the semantics of a community's tag-set."
> >
> >EXAMPLE
> >
> >Community #1 has defined a set of tags for expressing a person's
> >contact information.  Here's an XML document that shows their XML
> >vocabulary:
> >
> ><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> ><Point-of-Contact>
> >    <Name>John Smith</Name>
> >    <Address>
> >        <Street>10 Tremont St.</Street>
> >        <City>Boston</City>
> >        <State>MA</State>
> >    </Address>
> >    <Telephone>617-123-4567</Telephone>
> ></Point-of-Contact>
> >
> >Everyone in Community #1 understands the semantics of this collection
> >of tags, so within their community they merrily interoperate.
> >
> >INTEROPERATING WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES
> >
> >At some point in time, Community #1 recognizes that to grow and thrive
> >they must extend beyond their little island of members and must
> >interact with other communities.  Unfortunately for Community #1, those
> >other communities use different tags to represent a person's contact
> >information.
> >
> >Below are 3 approaches that Community #1 may take to bridge the gap
> >with the other communities.
> >
> >1. OUT-OF-BAND SEMANTIC RESOLUTION
> >
> >The first approach is for Community #1 to leave their XML documents
> >intact, as they are, and to bridge the gap by building a translator --
> >for example, an XSLT stylesheet that maps Community #1's tag-set to
> >Community #2's tag-set (and a translator to Community #3, #4, and so
> >forth)
> >
> >Advantages
> >
> >a. No impact to the XML documents exchanged within Community #1.
> >
> >Disadvantages
> >
> >a. Lots of translators need to be built and maintained ($$).
> >
> >2. MIMIC THE HTML MODEL FOR EXTENDING SEMANTICS
> >
> >The HTML specification says that the class attribute may be used for
> >"general user agent processing."[1] So, by adding class names to
> >elements, authors are able to expand the semantics of the language.
> >
> >Let's see how Community #1 can exploit this idea of using class
> >attributes to extend the semantics of their elements.  Suppose that
> >Community #1 knows that some other communities use the vcard
> >specification[2] for representing a person's contact information.
> >Thus, Community #1 extends the semantics of their XML vocabulary as
> >follows:
> >
> ><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> ><Point-of-Contact class="vcard">
> >    <Name class="fn">John Smith</Name>
> >    <Address class="adr">
> >        <Street class="street-address">10 Tremont St.</Street>
> >        <City class="locality">Boston</City>
> >        <State class="region">MA</State>
> >    </Address>
> >    <Telephone class="tel">617-123-4567</Telephone>
> ></Point-of-Contact>
> >
> >Note that a class attribute has been added to each element, and the
> >value of each class is a vcard term.
> >
> >Now Community #1 can interoperate with any community that understands
> >vcards.  And, of course, within Community #1 they can simply ignore the
> >class attributes, since the semantics of the elements are already
> >understood.
> >
> >The HTML specification also says: "Multiple class names must be
> >separated by white space characters." So, the class attributes can be
> >used in a polymorphic way to support other communities.  For example,
> >suppose some other communities use the EDI terminology for representing
> >a person's contact information.  Community #1 can accommodate those
> >communities as well:
> >
> ><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> ><Point-of-Contact class="vcard POC">
> >    <Name class="fn contact-name">John Smith</Name>
> >    <Address class="adr location">
> >        <Street class="street-address mailing-address">10 Tremont
> >St.</Street>
> >        <City class="locality district">Boston</City>
> >        <State class="region province">MA</State>
> >    </Address>
> >    <Telephone class="tel">617-123-4567</Telephone>
> ></Point-of-Contact>
> >
> >Note that each class attribute now has two values: a vcard term and an
> >EDI term.
> >
> >Now Community #1 can interoperate with any community that understands
> >vcards, as well as any community that understands EDI.  And, of course,
> >within Community #1 they still ignore the class attributes, since the
> >semantics of the elements are already understood.
> >
> >Additional extensions can be made to the class attributes to support
> >other communities.
> >
> >Advantages
> >
> >a. The semantic extensions are embedded within the document (in-band);
> >no translators needed.
> >
> >Disadvantages
> >
> >a. Community #1 must extend their XML vocabulary to support the class
> >attribute on each element, and define its semantics similar to how HTML
> >defines it.
> >
> >3. UNIVERSAL XML VOCABULARY
> >
> >The third approach is for all the communities to get together, throw
> >out their existing tag-set, and get everyone to agree to use one,
> >standard, universal tag set.
> >
> >Advantages
> >
> >a. No interoperability problems
> >
> >Disadvantages
> >
> >a. Difficult to get disparate groups with their own self-interests to
> >forego their investments and agree to adopt a single, universal
> >tag-set.
> >
> >QUESTIONS
> >
> >I. Are there other approaches that aren't captured above?
> >
> >II. Can you expand upon the advantages and disadvantages of the above
> >approaches?
> >
> >III. Which approach do you prefer? Why?
> >
> >/Roger
> >
> >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.2
> >[2] http://www.imc.org/pdi/vcard-21.txt
> >
> >_______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> >to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> >spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
> >
> >[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> >Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
> >subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
> >List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> >List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>
>


-- 
Stephen Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice

• References:
  • Approaches to Expanding the Semantics of a Community's Self-Interested XML Vocabulary
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Approaches to Expanding the Semantics of a Community'sSelf-Interested XML Vocabulary
    • From: Paul Tyson <phtyson@s...>