Paper16

Paper Title:

Three Critical Questions

Group 1:

Member Name:Fazlun

1) How exactly do the Java tools manipulate the XML models, because the author states that these tools do that by executing XQueries, what are these?
2) What criteria are picked while selecting the candidate matches, because there are different perspectives?
3) What can the different ways be so that they can be used to specify the matching algorithms and mapping systems?

Group 2:

Member Name: Anuradha Pathuri

1. Is there a way that the users can access the mappings from a common space, by which they are not limited to access their information only through their mobile device but any device that they have access to, instead of downloading them to their device before hand?
2. We have many tools available in the market today which support ontology mapping and help to convert the Ontologies into XML processes, like HP Jena as mentioned in the paper, but why does the model still limit the organizations to have their processes defined in XML?
3. How does the model enable the mapping information to be interoperable?
4. Is this model going to be cost effective? How frequently are the users going to use such applications? Is all the effort put in by the involved organizations and the end users going to be worthwhile?
5. Considering the fact that the field of ontology is still very young and is not completely developed, how successfully can this technique be implemented in conjunction with web services? More advanced research and study is required into both the fields so that such a model to meet its expectations.

Group 3:

Member Name: Bindu

1. In the execution phase, it is said that the mapping information should be available in both software and human interpretable format. How feasible is it to maintain so?
2. In the final activity of characterization phase, it gives the main information which indicate the expected difficulty in mapping. How accurate is this expected difficulty?
3. For implementing the ontology mapping system the applications should be able to interact with the local computing environment. How are the applications going to interact with the local computing environment?

Member Name: Ram

1) It is said that the terms used in naming and properties of ontology modeling will alter frequently. So, depending on this the next activity is greatly altered. What happens if the properties change after the decision is took in the next step?
2) In “decide to match” activity when did the system choose the match algorithm? If it is dynamic, how far will it affect the complexity of the system?
3) The proposed life cycle seems to be very convincingly acceptable. But we cannot judge the life cycle is correct basing the paper written on the same author. So, how far is the life cycle appreciated in real time scenario?

Group 4:

Member Name:Srujan Kumar Swarna

1. When we are allowing users to select the mapping and semantics and at a time we are automated tools also for this process. But author specified that fully automated selection of mappings also impractical. So how can we handle these two selection types of mappings?
2. While we are doing mappings selection, which one is better option from user selection and automated selection?
3. How can we say that we will get best mapping list out of our web services when we are using third party tools? How far it is secure when we are using third party tools in our process?

Member Name:Nikhil Reddy Lattupalli
Critical Questions:
1.The semantics of the consumer and the application should be in a common domain to interact,on which the mapping is being done ,how does the author justify that the consumer doesn't lose his nature of roaming in getting adapted to these domain oriented environment?
2.Interoperability always stands over the roaming environment ,how does the author justify that the mapping over the application and the consumers semantics would establish an interoperability among the services and the consumer when there is a certain criteria eveolved? Do these mappings evolve through the use of the web services?
3.In the implementation the author uses tools (java based) to manage the xml models by suing certain engine. This is being done over two organizations (deployment) .In this outcome he has used the "decide to map" as the primary concern as it establishes the remaining of the other phases .How does all this interoperability count for the two organizations and how are these being delivered towards the other phases ,though the phases are quite simple are these decisions to map need to be specific,so how does he manipulate to map the communications between the two organizations and the webservice?
4.How does the author justify that the roaming user is being provided with an interaction environment which will be as a native environment?

Group 5:

Member Name: Sunil Kakaraparthi

1. The author uses the decide and match activity to match the ontologies. How can the match be decided if they are lot of matches found and on what basis deciding is occurred?
2. The author explains that the applications are not called directly but are processed depending on other application. If a application depends on the other application how can the security issue be handled.
3. HP Jena toolkit raises problems such as the method is less robust and non-standard. Is there any toolkit that solves these problems?

Group 6:

1) As there is no commonly agreed mapping is present between the roaming users and the system, What if the representation of the user for services is much different to present system?
2) How the machine is going to understand XML representation of a different language without any help from humanbeing?
3) Execution phase from all the matching from mapping stage, the user relevant mapping are to be produced. On what basis the information matching is done at this level?

Group 7:

Member Name:SANDEEP KUMAR

Critical Questions:

1)Where is the standard in mapping?Especially local service providers,public authorities does not make a generalised "Ontology".Corporate application have to compromise along with public and local authority which may not happen or may not be feasible.

2)How does human and software interpretation form takes?There should be way to bridge the gap between human and system so as to implement Ontology mapping to takes place successfully.

3) What is the scenario in candidate mapping with multiple mapping?How does this mapping scenario effect in expert use case and individual use case.A best mapping need to be selected and how can this be done.Here a public and corporate conflict will arise as they have their own standards and approaches.

Member Name:Shaiv

1.Mappings are generated at the end of semantic interoperability process. But Are any measures taken to check the correctness
of each mapping that is generated?
2.If there is a mismatch in the mapping, then what is its effect on large scale information system?
3.Is it possible to build a coherent representation of ontology mapping?

Group 8:

Member Name:Nikhilesh Katakam

1.How much cost efficient would this approach be? As this approach requires organizations with many roaming users to deploy specialist mapping staff, and additional computing resources?
2)The ontology mappings requires a pre agreed set of mapping cycles agreed between multiple parties, with so many service providers,
is it not difficult to achieve it? More over the developers should maintain commons standard as mentioned in the above ? is it not difficult to achieve it .
3)The author talks about automating the mapping phase ,but did not provide an approaches which enables to automate the generation of mappings ?
4)The author mentions that ontology mappings would overcome the challenges involved in roaming phases, But did not give sufficient
evaluations to support how they

Group 9:

Member Name:Muppalla Durga Maheswari

1.How can the services standards be maintained when there is a lot of “diversity of services” and how the “interoperability problem” is achieved when the services change as the requirements changes in the future.

2.It is stated that mapping can be done for the simple to the “complex correspondence” How the mapping and integration can be managed without complexities if there are too many ontology elements with “complex correspondences”.

3.In the characterization phase the “candidate matches” which are discovered in the previous activities are examined if any errors occurs with those activities they are corrected this would affect the current running activities how can this be overcome because this will create some complexities.

Group 10:

Member Name:Gayathri Devi Bojja

1.It is commonly considered that the users would not prefer doing ontology mapping themselves. But is it practical to consider that only expert will be using the tools of ontology mapping?
2.Though the author specifies that we should also consider some complex ontology mapping. But he did not specify how to continue mapping in these situations.
3.The paper says few of the techniques also help users in mapping few difficult ontology mappings but what are they and how do they help and how are they different from the rest of the systems?

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License