RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] ISO 16642

["Stan Hendryx" <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The CEN Workshop Agreement says, as one of its requirements for technical
cooperation, that "long-term ADNOM network will integrate topic maps into
the federated registry..." [9.3.2] 

SBVR is compatible with topic maps. See SBVR Annex K, which says in part,
"The only transformation required [between SBVR and Topic Map Constraint
Language], in addition to the generally applicable ones mentioned above
[i.e. translation of SBVR modal formulations, translation of certain SBVR
logical operations and quantifiers, and definition of additional primitive
types in SBVR] would be where semantics conceptualized into SBVR metamodel
constructs differ from the way it is conceptualized into metamodel
constructs in Topic Maps as they both talk about real business things in
business friendly terms." This last point is addressed by the OMG's Ontology
Definition Metamodel (ODM) spec, which includes Topic Maps as one of its
target representations.

Stan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mdt-sbvr.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-sbvr.dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 12:52 PM
> To: SBVR developer list
> Subject: Re: [mdt-sbvr.dev] ISO 16642
> 
> Stan Hendryx wrote:
> > Hello Anders,
> >
> > The SBVR community is working on integrating with other knowledge
> > representation formats, especially those of the OMG Ontology Definition
> > Metamodel. SBVR outlines some of these mappings. SBVR itself uses ISO
> 1087-2
> > and 704. Do you have or know of a particular need for mapping SBVR?
> >
> 
> Yes, this project is of interest
> 
> CEN workshop European Network for Administrative Nomenclature
> 
> <http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/businessdomains/businessdomains/isss/activity/ad
> nom.asp
> 
> /anders
> > ISO 16642 can be seen at http://www.loria.fr/projets/TMF/.
> >
> > Stan Hendryx
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: mdt-sbvr.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-sbvr.dev-
> >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Carlson
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:55 PM
> >> To: 'SBVR developer list'
> >> Subject: RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] ISO 16642
> >>
> >> Anders,
> >> I believe that several of the SBVR specification submitters are
> subscribed
> >> to this list, maybe one of them is involved with ISO 16642 and can
> comment
> >> on its relationship with SBVR metamodel.  I don't have access to this
> ISO
> >> spec beyond the short abstract on ISO's web site.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: mdt-sbvr.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> [mailto:mdt-sbvr.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> >>> opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:13 AM
> >>> To: 'SBVR developer list'
> >>> Subject: [mdt-sbvr.dev] ISO 16642
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hej,
> >>>
> >>> Im browsning through a set of European std document and ISO
> >>> 16642 pops
> >>> up with is XML interchange format.
> >>> It would be interesting to know if there is an interest in
> >>> the Eclipse /
> >>> SBVR community is to integrate SBVR with other terminological
> >>> standards?
> >>>
> >>> thanks
> >>> /anders
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> mdt-sbvr.dev mailing list
> >>> mdt-sbvr.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-sbvr.dev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mdt-sbvr.dev mailing list
> >> mdt-sbvr.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-sbvr.dev
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mdt-sbvr.dev mailing list
> > mdt-sbvr.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-sbvr.dev
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mdt-sbvr.dev mailing list
> mdt-sbvr.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-sbvr.dev