You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jackrabbit.apache.org by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org> on 2004/11/01 00:24:08 UTC
Re: [PROPOSAL] Public NodeType Library (pntl)
Rolf Kulemann wrote:
> My idea is to describe the concept of workflow using OWL/RDF.
why?
--
Stefano, curious not criticizing.
Re: Lenya workflow and OWL [was Re: [PROPOSAL] Public NodeType
Library (pntl)]
Posted by Rolf Kulemann <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 20:01, Rolf Kulemann wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 00:24, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > Rolf Kulemann wrote:
> >
> > > My idea is to describe the concept of workflow using OWL/RDF.
> >
OWL/semantic web references for those who are interested:
*
http://www.kbs.uni-hannover.de/~henze/semweb04/skript/slides/7_6_2004/Chapter4.ppt
* http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html
* http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/
* http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/
*
http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontology101/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html
and many more...
--
Rolf Kulemann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Lenya workflow and OWL [was Re: [PROPOSAL] Public NodeTypeLibrary (pntl)]
Posted by Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>.
> > Apache Lenya might want to collaborate with Apache Agila (the BPM project
> > currently in the incubator) regarding workflow.
>
> Is there any need for extending/replacing the current workflow
> engine in Lenya?
I do think that the current workflow is appropriate for most purposes and does
not need to be replaced. But in some organisations workflow is more important
than other aspects of content management. That is why I am suggesting to keep an
eye on the mentioned project and keep Lenya's workflow replaceable.
The interfaces of Apache Agila are not fixed yet. It therefore probably is
easier to influence them now. (In fact there is not even any code available at
the moment.)
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Lenya workflow and OWL [was Re: [PROPOSAL] Public
NodeTypeLibrary (pntl)]
Posted by Rolf Kulemann <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 09:31, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> >>>>Even if the interoperability is still a dream, it doesn't hurt to use
> >>>>OWL/RDF as workflow metadata tools, it's just XML, which we use anyhow.
> >>>>
> >>>>I now could give you some OWL examples how we could model the workflow
> >>>>and the underlying state machine, but I'm really tyred, eh tired.
> >
> >
> > Apache Lenya might want to collaborate with Apache Agila (the BPM project
> > currently in the incubator) regarding workflow.
>
> Is there any need for extending/replacing the current workflow
> engine in Lenya?
IMHO our workflow is quite flexible, simple and useful. I'm just talking
about the form of the meta data.
Sorry for the confusion.
--
Rolf Kulemann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Lenya workflow and OWL [was Re: [PROPOSAL] Public NodeTypeLibrary
(pntl)]
Posted by Andreas Hartmann <an...@apache.org>.
Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>>>>Even if the interoperability is still a dream, it doesn't hurt to use
>>>>OWL/RDF as workflow metadata tools, it's just XML, which we use anyhow.
>>>>
>>>>I now could give you some OWL examples how we could model the workflow
>>>>and the underlying state machine, but I'm really tyred, eh tired.
>
>
> Apache Lenya might want to collaborate with Apache Agila (the BPM project
> currently in the incubator) regarding workflow.
Is there any need for extending/replacing the current workflow
engine in Lenya?
-- Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Lenya workflow and OWL [was Re: [PROPOSAL] Public NodeTypeLibrary (pntl)]
Posted by Andreas Kuckartz <A....@ping.de>.
> > > Even if the interoperability is still a dream, it doesn't hurt to use
> > > OWL/RDF as workflow metadata tools, it's just XML, which we use anyhow.
> > >
> > > I now could give you some OWL examples how we could model the workflow
> > > and the underlying state machine, but I'm really tyred, eh tired.
Apache Lenya might want to collaborate with Apache Agila (the BPM project
currently in the incubator) regarding workflow.
One could or should think about an extension of Content Management to Semantic
Web (Content) Management. In that context OWL can be relevant.
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Lenya workflow and OWL [was Re: [PROPOSAL] Public NodeType
Library (pntl)]
Posted by Rolf Kulemann <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 22:38, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Rolf Kulemann wrote:
...
> > This, yeah, hopefully Lenya independent, abstract concepts can be
> > used/extended by other JCR apps to interoperate with out JCR repo
> > layout. ....I'm dreaming, I know. IMHO this is the only way to promote
> > Lenya to more than _ another CMS only _
> >
> > Stefano, is this idea too naiv? I'm no semantic web expert, yet.
> >
> > Even if the interoperability is still a dream, it doesn't hurt to use
> > OWL/RDF as workflow metadata tools, it's just XML, which we use anyhow.
> >
> > I now could give you some OWL examples how we could model the workflow
> > and the underlying state machine, but I'm really tyred, eh tired.
> >
> > Gimme your opinion please :)
>
> I think this is just plain useless complication for no reason.
>
> My suggestion is: do the simplest thing that can possible solve the
> problem that you have, right here and right now, everything else is
> overshooting.
Thanks for your reply.
Why do you think so? Don't you believe in the interoperability which can
be achieved with SW tech?
People are complaining, that Lenya is just another CMS. And I think the
overhead is not that huge using RDF and OWL, since we simply use XML for
annotation as before. So where is the overshoot? The difference that we
have some new namespaces and OWL definitions somewhere.
I will have your opinion in mind, but it will not keep me away from
experimenting. There are too much papers about SW and only few
solutions. Paperwork is not my business. I want to try it out. Maybe
Lenya is not the right place, but it is a real world show case and it
will separate Lenya from all the other CMSs I know.
Would you mind to give some more arguments why you think it is an
overshoot?
I'm really interested in your opinion. Do not hesitate telling/arguing
me I'm thinking too naive. It is important for me to get on the right
way and other honest opinions are always helping me.
--
Rolf Kulemann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Lenya workflow and OWL [was Re: [PROPOSAL] Public NodeType
Library (pntl)]
Posted by Rolf Kulemann <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 22:38, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Rolf Kulemann wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 00:24, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> >
> >>Rolf Kulemann wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>My idea is to describe the concept of workflow using OWL/RDF.
> >>
> >>why?
> >
> >
> >
> > JCR is like JDBC; a low level _backend_ access layer, right? I assume
> > that. That means interoperability of JCR apps is as restricted as of
> > JDBC based apps; App A does not now the semantic meaning of tables in a
> > DB model of App B, right? I think so. Let table "Person" be a table in
> > the database of App B.
> >
> > The only way around that is to describe semantically, that table
> > "Person" _describes persons_. The same matches to nodes and properties
> > in JCR, IMHO.
> >
> > If another CMS app than Lenya should now what property belongs to
> > workflow, we need to describe _semantically_: this property belongs to
> > workflow and the node it is attached to is a , lets say, document.
> >
> > I thought I can do that using OWL (full or light dunno yet what is
> > appropriate yet).
> >
> > This means more concrete: Lets use OWL classes and properties to
> > describe/model/define our concepts, aka ontologies, with OWL. Instances
> > of these classes are attached as workflow _metadata_ to appropriate
> > nodes.
> >
> > This, yeah, hopefully Lenya independent, abstract concepts can be
> > used/extended by other JCR apps to interoperate with out JCR repo
> > layout. ....I'm dreaming, I know. IMHO this is the only way to promote
> > Lenya to more than _ another CMS only _
> >
> > Stefano, is this idea too naiv? I'm no semantic web expert, yet.
> >
> > Even if the interoperability is still a dream, it doesn't hurt to use
> > OWL/RDF as workflow metadata tools, it's just XML, which we use anyhow.
> >
> > I now could give you some OWL examples how we could model the workflow
> > and the underlying state machine, but I'm really tyred, eh tired.
> >
> > Gimme your opinion please :)
>
> I think this is just plain useless complication for no reason.
Why?
--
Rolf Kulemann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: Lenya workflow and OWL [was Re: [PROPOSAL] Public NodeType Library
(pntl)]
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Rolf Kulemann wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 00:24, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>>Rolf Kulemann wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My idea is to describe the concept of workflow using OWL/RDF.
>>
>>why?
>
>
>
> JCR is like JDBC; a low level _backend_ access layer, right? I assume
> that. That means interoperability of JCR apps is as restricted as of
> JDBC based apps; App A does not now the semantic meaning of tables in a
> DB model of App B, right? I think so. Let table "Person" be a table in
> the database of App B.
>
> The only way around that is to describe semantically, that table
> "Person" _describes persons_. The same matches to nodes and properties
> in JCR, IMHO.
>
> If another CMS app than Lenya should now what property belongs to
> workflow, we need to describe _semantically_: this property belongs to
> workflow and the node it is attached to is a , lets say, document.
>
> I thought I can do that using OWL (full or light dunno yet what is
> appropriate yet).
>
> This means more concrete: Lets use OWL classes and properties to
> describe/model/define our concepts, aka ontologies, with OWL. Instances
> of these classes are attached as workflow _metadata_ to appropriate
> nodes.
>
> This, yeah, hopefully Lenya independent, abstract concepts can be
> used/extended by other JCR apps to interoperate with out JCR repo
> layout. ....I'm dreaming, I know. IMHO this is the only way to promote
> Lenya to more than _ another CMS only _
>
> Stefano, is this idea too naiv? I'm no semantic web expert, yet.
>
> Even if the interoperability is still a dream, it doesn't hurt to use
> OWL/RDF as workflow metadata tools, it's just XML, which we use anyhow.
>
> I now could give you some OWL examples how we could model the workflow
> and the underlying state machine, but I'm really tyred, eh tired.
>
> Gimme your opinion please :)
I think this is just plain useless complication for no reason.
My suggestion is: do the simplest thing that can possible solve the
problem that you have, right here and right now, everything else is
overshooting.
--
Stefano.
Lenya workflow and OWL [was Re: [PROPOSAL] Public NodeType Library
(pntl)]
Posted by Rolf Kulemann <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 00:24, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Rolf Kulemann wrote:
>
> > My idea is to describe the concept of workflow using OWL/RDF.
>
> why?
JCR is like JDBC; a low level _backend_ access layer, right? I assume
that. That means interoperability of JCR apps is as restricted as of
JDBC based apps; App A does not now the semantic meaning of tables in a
DB model of App B, right? I think so. Let table "Person" be a table in
the database of App B.
The only way around that is to describe semantically, that table
"Person" _describes persons_. The same matches to nodes and properties
in JCR, IMHO.
If another CMS app than Lenya should now what property belongs to
workflow, we need to describe _semantically_: this property belongs to
workflow and the node it is attached to is a , lets say, document.
I thought I can do that using OWL (full or light dunno yet what is
appropriate yet).
This means more concrete: Lets use OWL classes and properties to
describe/model/define our concepts, aka ontologies, with OWL. Instances
of these classes are attached as workflow _metadata_ to appropriate
nodes.
This, yeah, hopefully Lenya independent, abstract concepts can be
used/extended by other JCR apps to interoperate with out JCR repo
layout. ....I'm dreaming, I know. IMHO this is the only way to promote
Lenya to more than _ another CMS only _
Stefano, is this idea too naiv? I'm no semantic web expert, yet.
Even if the interoperability is still a dream, it doesn't hurt to use
OWL/RDF as workflow metadata tools, it's just XML, which we use anyhow.
I now could give you some OWL examples how we could model the workflow
and the underlying state machine, but I'm really tyred, eh tired.
Gimme your opinion please :)
--
Rolf Kulemann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lenya-dev-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lenya-dev-help@cocoon.apache.org