1 / 50

SICoP and DRM Implementation Through Iteration and Testing: Making It Real

SICoP and DRM Implementation Through Iteration and Testing: Making It Real. Federal Metadata Management Consortium December 13, 2005 Brand Niemann (US EPA), Chair, Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP) Best Practices Committee (BPC), CIO Council

sook
Download Presentation

SICoP and DRM Implementation Through Iteration and Testing: Making It Real

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SICoP and DRM Implementation Through Iteration and Testing:Making It Real Federal Metadata Management Consortium December 13, 2005 Brand Niemann (US EPA), Chair, Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP) Best Practices Committee (BPC), CIO Council http://web-services.gov/ and http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?DRMImplementationThroughIterationandTestingPilotProjects

  2. Introduction • Describe Yourself: • Scientist – Atmospheric and Computer Science. • EPA Data Standards (ISO/IEC 11179), SICoP (Semantic Standards and Technologies), and DRM (Composite Applications, etc.) Pilots. • Describe Your Context: • Scientific Method – Do Experiments (Pilots) to Test Architectural (Enterprise, Knowledge, Data) Concepts. • A total of 10 public forums, meetings, and workshops and 29 pilot presentations on the DRM in the past five months! • Describe What You Want to Share: • Five Steps to Interoperability (in the domain of scientific ontology) (Barry Smith). • Find ways to use reality to take care of interoperability (when scientists disagree they let reality tell them how to resolve their disagreement – they look at instances). (Concept, instance, and the relationship between them – otherwise it is just in our minds.)

  3. Information Model • Ontology and Flow: • 1. What is Semantic Interoperability? • 2. What is a Community of Practice? • 3. What is DRM 2.0? • 4. What is DRM 2.0 Implementation Guidance? • 5. Where is SICoP DRM Implementation Going? • 6. Can semantics improve the usefulness of the ISO/IEC 11179 standard? (Pilot Demonstration) • 7. What is the Format for Questions? • Appendix: What is the Role of ISO/IEC 11179?

  4. Information Model Two Connected Layers: Knowledge Map and the Information Resources

  5. Information Model • Introduce a concept in the form of a question. • Answer that question with a definition and an instance that illustrates the relationship we mean between the concept and the instance. • Provide a flow of concepts and instances that supports logic and reasoning. • This illustrates the Knowledge Reference Model we are working towards!

  6. 1. What is Semantic Interoperability? • Formal Semantics*: • Semantic is primarily concerned with sameness. It determines that two entities are the same in spite of appearing to be different. • Number semantics: 5.1, 5.10, and 05.1 are all the same number. • DNA sequence semantics: cctggacct is the same as CCTGGACCT. • XML document semantics is defined by infosets. * Introduction to the Semantic Web for Bioinformatics, Ken Baclawski, December 6, 2005, & K. Baclawski & T. Niu, Ontologies for Bioinformatics, MIT Press, October, 2005

  7. 1. What is Semantic Interoperability? • Five Steps to Interoperability (in the domain of scientific ontology)*: • (1) Find ways to use reality to take care of interoperability (when scientists disagree they let reality tell them how to resolve their disagreement – they look at instances). • (2) Recognize that an ontology consists of names for types and of representations of relations between types defined in terms of underlying relations between instances. • (3) Recognize correspondingly that there are three kinds of relations: <class, class>, <class, instance>, & <instance, instance> • (4) Use a coherent upper level taxonomy distinguishing continuants (cells, molecules, organisms ...), occurrents (events, processes), dependent entities (qualities, functions ...), and independent entities (their bearers). • (5) Coordinate, coordinate, coordinate! * Barry Smith, Workshop on Bio-ontologies, October 28, 2005, University of Buffalo.

  8. 1. What is Semantic Interoperability? Mapping ebXML to/from UDDI* * UDDI and ebXML from One Registry, Tony Graham, XML 2005 Conference, November 14-18, Atlanta, GA.

  9. 2. What is a Community of Practice? • The concept of a Community of Practice (often abbreviated as CoP) refers to the process of social learning that occurs when people who have a common interest in some subject or problem collaborate over an extended period to share ideas, find solutions, and build innovations. • Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice

  10. 2. What is a Community of Practice? • Table of Contents: • Charter • Calendar • Future • Past • SICoP Working Groups and Projects • SICoP Conferences and Public Meetings • SICoP White Papers and Presentations • SICoP Support for the Data Reference Model • Discussion Forum Archives / File Workspace & Resources • SICoP Conference Calls See http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP

  11. 2. What is a Community of Practice? Source: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage

  12. Logic and Reasoning • So SICoP is “primarily concerned with sameness” using “scientific ontology” focused on “instances” by “coordination” across “community” over an extended period to find solutions to “interoperability”. • Also see the SICoP Charter: • White Papers • Conferences and Workshops • Pilot Projects • Comment: After reading the FMMC Charter (October 5, 2005 Draft), I thought we are working towards the same goal – “Improving government information through data management.”

  13. 3. What is DRM 2.0? • A New FEA Reference Model* with: • (1) Reference Model: • Abstract Model. • (2) Management Strategy: • FEA Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework 2.0. • (3) Implementation Guidance: • Pilots During 2005 and Continuing in 2006. Five Vendor Implementations So Far! • (4) OMB Draft E-Gov Act 2002 Section 207d /DRM Guidance: • See Footnote 14. * Like a four-legged stool with rungs to create a stable platform going forward. Need all four legs and all four rungs connecting them to remain stable.

  14. 3. What is DRM 2.0? • Data: Three Types – structured (20%), and unstructured and semi-structured (80%). • Originally it was the Data and Information Reference Model. • Metadata: Three Roles – discovery, integration, and reasoning. • Recombine data and metadata for sharing and reuse and address Section 207d requirements (see slide 16). • Model: Three Functions – description, context, and sharing. • DRM XML Schema and DRM Abstract Model (see next slide). • Reporting: Three Documents – reference, management strategy, and implementation guide. • Integrated in the DRM Education Pilot with Pilot Metrics and CoP/CoI Templates (see slide 17). • Metamodel: Three Implementation Levels – organizational, technical, and semantic interoperability or agency, CoI, and cross-CoI. • European Interoperability Framework, Andreas Tolk, Enterprise Architecture Assessment 2.0, DoD Net-Centric Strategy, etc.

  15. 3. What is DRM 2.0? Portion of the Abstract Model were data elements are classified, specified, defined, named, and registered.

  16. 3. What is DRM 2.0? Mapping DRM Abstract Model to Draft OMB Section 207d / DRM Guidance

  17. 3. What is DRM 2.0? Use DRM Version 2.0 itself as a pilot project for education and FEA information sharing! See http://web-services.gov and Dynamic Knowledge Repositories

  18. 4. What is DRM 2.0 Implementation Guidance? • What is it? Taxonomies and Ontologies for describing information relationships and associations in a way that can be accessed and searched. • What am I expected to do? Use the DRM Abstract Model to guide both your agency data architecture and your interagency data sharing activities. • What are some best practices for doing it? See Ontology and Taxonomy Coordinating Work Group, etc. • How do I work both locally in my Agency and more globally with other agencies on this? Participate in the Collaboration Workshops, the DRM ITIT Team, etc. See next slide for explanation.

  19. 4. What is DRM 2.0 Implementation Guidance? • Metamodel by Andreas Tolk (2005): • There are four rectangular boxes on top of one another (labeled from bottom to top: data, metadata, model, and metamodel, respectively) and each box contains 2-4 circular colored dots, and these colored dots are connected with lines, meant to show that there are relationships, or need to be relationships, between say data and metadata, between metadata and models, and between models and metamodels. The purpose is to show that we need to describe information model relationships and associations in a way that can be accessed and searched.

  20. 4. What is DRM 2.0 Implementation Guidance? See next slide for explanation. Source: Mills Davis, “Smart Search Continuum” in DRM Implementation - Preliminary Strategy, October 11, 2005.

  21. 4. What is DRM 2.0 Implementation Guidance? • The role of semantic metadata in increasing search capability: • In this XY graph, the X axis is labeled "Increasing Search Capability" (with sub-labels of Recovery, Discovery, Intelligence, Question Answering, and Reasoning) and the Y-Axis is labeled "Increasing Metadata" (with sub-labels from Weak Semantics to Strong Semantics). A straight line from the origin to the upper right has labels of Syntactic Interoperability (sub-label "Many Federal applications do not enable data sharing"), Structural Interoperability (DRM 2.0 sets the bar here), and Semantic Interoperability (Some Intelligence, Defense, Security, Health, Science & Business applications share information at these levels) from bottom to top. The point of this XY graph is that Increasing Metadata (from glossaries to ontologies) is highly correlated with Increasing Search Capability (from discovery to reasoning).

  22. 4. What is DRM 2.0 Implementation Guidance? • Five Key Activities Over the Next Year: • (1) Education and Training in DRM Version 2.0 and use in FEA – DRM-based Information Sharing Pilots (started June 13th). • (2) Testing of XML Schemas and OWL Ontologies by NIST and the National Center for Ontological Research, respectively, among others (began October 27th). • (3) Inventory/Repository of Semantic Interoperability Assets and Development of a Common Semantic Model (COSMO) by the new Ontology and Taxonomy Coordinating Work Group (ONTACWG) (started October 5th). • (4) Continued early implementation of DRM 2.0 concepts and artifacts by industry in “open collaboration with open standards” pilot projects and workshops (started July 19th). • (5) Fostering champions of DRM Best Practices to improve (1) agency data architectures within agencies and (2) cross-agency data sharing across agencies in funded projects (started June 13th).

  23. 4. What is DRM 2.0 Implementation Guidance? • Pilot Metrics: • A specific instance for the “Semantic DNS - UDEF Disaster Response Pilot” (presented on November 10th, December 6th and today), based on an initial assessment subject to feedback and review, is that it covers 13 of the 15 boxes in the five by three matrix (recall slide 5 – Data, Model, Documents, Implementation, and Status). The two missing boxes are that it does not currently treat unstructured or semi-structured data. This has been addressed. • This template will be completed for all pilot projects and provides metrics to help decide what should be done with the pilots, namely, adopt them (high score), improve them (moderate score), or not adopt them (low score). • CoP/CoI Templates (see next slide): • Helps CoPs/CoIs both differentiate themselves from one another as to their unique interests as well as help discover where collaboration and synergy is possible.

  24. 4. What is DRM 2.0 Implementation Guidance? • Community Profile for XXX • By / Date: • Last Updated: • Community (name): • Date Established: • Key Stakeholders: • Constituency: • Domain: • Mission / Charter: • With respect to Ontology work (esp. eGov-related work), the community's: • Medium Term Goal: • Short Term Goal: • Deliverables within the next 6 months: • Key Differentiation (with the other communities presenting today): • What we can bring to the table to foster collaboration with other communities here today: • Additional Remarks: • Contact: • See http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_11_10/Prep

  25. 5. Where is SICoP DRM 2.0 Implementation Going? • The Evolution of Metadata: • In the beginning there was data, and hopefully its documentation – but it was not accessible so we resorted to: • “Metadata for Discovery” – but we still wanted to see the actual data – now both are on the Web. • “Metadata for Integration” – but that is really hard. • I spent two years doing it for the Interagency Chesapeake Bay Program databases with help from graduate classes in exploratory data analysis and statistical data visualization and produced a comprehensive “Data Story”. • And now the new paradigm is “Executable Metadata” – the data (XML), metadata (RDF), models (RDF/S) and metamodels (OWL) are all integrated to support knowledge computing, statistical computing, and stochastic inference under conditions of uncertainty referred to as the “Bayesian Web: • See "Ontologies for Bioinformatics“, Ken Baclawski and Tianhua Niu, MIT Press, October 2005: http://ontobio.org/ • And see the National Center for Ontological Research (NCOR): http://ncor.us

  26. 5. Where is SICoP DRM 2.0 Implementation Going? Source: Mills Davis, http://web-services.gov/NetCentricSemantics051110.pdf

  27. 5. Where is SICoP DRM 2.0 Implementation Going? • White Paper Module 3 for the CIO Council Best Practices Committee in 2006 - Implementing the Semantic Web: • See http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoPConference_2005_09_14 • Major Events: • Fourth Semantic Technologies for E-Government Conference, February 9-10, 2006, Mitre, McLean, Virginia • Lockheed Martin Information Technology Trends Conference, February 14-16, 2006, Orlando, Florida • Fifth International Semantic Web Conference, November 5-9, 2006, Athens, Georgia. • Upcoming Workshops: • January 24, 2006, Semantic Interoperability Across the Model-Driven Architecture and Knowledge Representation Communities of Practice • New Pilots: • Sun, IBM, NSA (Sam Chance), etc. • Federal Health Architecture Data Architecture WG (HITOP/HL-7, etc.) • Semantic Wikis, Core, and Models of Documents

  28. 5. Where is SICoP DRM 2.0 Implementation Going? Super Pilot: Address as Many Boxes as Possible! Yes ? ? CoP: Community of Practice LoB: Line of Business FHA/DAWG: Federal Health Architecture – Data Architecture Work Group

  29. 6. Can semantics improve the usefulness of the ISO/IEC 11179 standard? • The “Semantic DNS - UDEF Disaster Response Pilot” comes from asking the question “can semantics improve the usefulness of the ISO/IEC 11179 standard?” • And the experiment (pilot) shows that it does! • Introducing Ron Schuldt: • Lockheed Martin • Chair, Open Group UDEF Forum

  30. 7. What is the Format for Questions? • 1. General DRM – Through Your Agency Representatives to the DRM Executive Committee. • 2. Specific to SICoP and DRM Implementation – Brand Niemann • 3. Pilot – Ron Schuldt • 4. Please follow the information model: • Concepts and specific instances.

  31. Appendix:What is the Role of ISO 11179? • Brief History of My Efforts to Make ISO 11179 Metadata Registry Improvements: • EPA Data Standards Branch: • Repurposed the EPA EDR - structured and unstructured • Integration - metadata and data together • Harmonization - reduction/elimination of redundant data elements • Chair, CIO Council’s XML Web Services WG: • E-Forms for E-Gov – Fenestra/Economic Census - Web Services and Mapping Wizard • Industry Advisory Council and Many Registry/Repository Pilots • DRM 2.0 Implementation Lead: • See next slides and Data Reference Model: Update on Status, March 7, 2005, to the EPA OEI Board of Directors and DRM Team.

  32. Appendix:What is the Role of ISO 11179? • Brief History of My Efforts to Make ISO 11179 Metadata Registry Improvements (continued): • DRM 2.0 Implementation Lead: • Evolving Data Models & Standards: Collaborating to Achieve Semantic Interoperability ... (from ISO 11179, ebXML Core Components, UBL, HL7, UML ... to UML2/OCL, RDF, OWL, OWL-S, SWRL, SUMO, DOLCE, SCL and other emerging semantic web services technologies and standards), Peter Yim, June 13, 2005. • Included Extended Metadata Registry (XMDR) for Complex Semantics, Kevin Keck, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Presented at the Open Forum 2005 on Metadata Registries. See next slide. • Model-Driven Semantic Web - Emerging Technologies & Implementation Strategies: A Roadmap to OMG’s MDA and Ontology Definition Metamodel, XMDR, etc., Elisa Kendall, August 16, 2005. See slide 33. • ONTAC WG Discussions and Work Plan, October to present: • “If ISO 11179 were further developed, it would suffice for describing and managing ontologies."

  33. XMDR Project • Collaborative, interagency effort: • EPA, USGS, NCI, Mayo Clinic, DOD, LBNL …& others • Extending ISO 11179 Metadata Registry with formal semantics: • First using description logic (OWL), and eventually supporting full first-order logic (nascent Common Logic) • Prototype includes inference as well as text search: • Using Apache, Subversion, Lucene, Jena, Xerces, etc. • Variety of complex content, including: Defense Technology Information Center (DTIC) Thesaurus, National Cancer Institute (NCI) Thesaurus & Data Elements, General Multilingual Environmental Thesaurus (GEMET), Environmental Data Registry (EDR) administered items, ISO 3166 Country Codes, USGS Geographic Names • ManyPlayers, Many Interests…Shared Context Source: Kevin Keck, XMDR.org, June 2005 in Peter Yim, June 13, 2005.

  34. Ontology Definition Metamodel Semantics for Business Vocabularies & Rules Production Rules RFP OMG Standards & Zachman Framework Source: Elisa Kendall, August 16, 2005

  35. Limitations of ISO/IEC 11179 • Initial DRM Work: • IAC White Paper, May 28, 2003 (Mike Lang, MetaMatrix) (See next slide). • EPA Comments on the DRM, November 15, 2004. • Ontolog Forum, at the EIDX "Semantic Harmonization" Panel Session (Jon Bosak), December 1, 2004: • "Explicit Semantics for Business Ontology - an interim report from the Ontolog Forum“ • http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2004_12_01

  36. Limitations of ISO/IEC 11179 • Business Integration Driven by Business Lines: A perspective on the Data Reference Model as it relates to Cross Agency Challenges. Standards Based Architecture to Support Federated Data Management. Concept Level WHITE PAPER Developed for the Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office (FEA -PMO), Federal CIO Council, NASCIO, and Public Cross Government Initiatives Industry Advisory Council (IAC) Enterprise Architecture SIG, May 28, 2003: • This white paper discusses the limitations of ISO 11179 on page 46 as well as limitations of ebXML on page 50.

  37. Limitations of ISO/IEC 11179 • Mike Daconta, February 11, 2005: • Set up a meeting with the ISO/IEC 11179 editors (Larry Fitzwater, Sam Chance, Nancy Lawler) on the evolution of 11179 to OWL? • First understand the plan for evolving 11179 and second evolve it towards greater semantics in its metamodel (e.g. rewrite Volume 1 to specify OOP and OWL principles). • Ontolog Forum Discussions: • February 24, 2005, "Ontologies and Meta-Ontologies: Practical Considerations“ (11179 to OWL, Upper Ontology Conversion, etc.): • http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologDiscussion/MetaOntologies_And_Ontologies • March 3, 2005, Annual Ontolog Community Strategic & Work Planning Work Session (Collaborations with Duane Nickull, etc.): • http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_03_03

  38. Limitations of ISO/IEC 11179 • DRM WG Meeting, February 23, 2005, Informal Discussions: • No vendor implementation (Mike Daconta). • Only for legacy data (structured) holdings (Larry Fitzwater). • Introducing Semantic Technologies and the Vision of the Semantic Web (DKR Version) ("DRM of the Future") Delivered by SICoP to the CIO Council's Best Practices Committees, February 28, 2005. • Machine-processable with strong semantics for all three types of data (unstructured, semi-structured, and structured). • Adding Value While Having Fun With EPA Data! Briefing to the EPA Office of Environmental Information Board of Directors, March 2, 2005.

  39. Data standards can evolve • ISO 11179: • EPA Date: • The Date Data Standard provides for a standard representation of calendar date in data files for data interchange. • Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO): • Date: • According to WordNet, the noun "date" has 8 sense (s) (see next slide). • SUMO is written in the SUO-KIF language (declarative semantics and machine processible) which has been translated to OWL – Web Ontology Language. • See http://www.ontologyportal.org/

  40. Data standards can evolve • Date: • 1. The specified day of the month; "what is the date today?". • 2. A particular day specified as the time something will happen; "the date of the election is set by law". • 3. A meeting arranged in advance; "she asked how to avoid kissing at the end of a date". • 4. A particular but unspecified point in time; "they hoped to get together at an early date". • The present; "they are up to date"; "we haven't heard from them to date". • 5. The present; "they are up to date"; "we haven't heard from them to date". • 6. A participant in a date; "his date never stopped talking". • 7. The particular year (usually according to the Gregorian calendar) that an event occurred; "he tried to memorizes all the dates for his history class". • 8. Sweet edible fruit of the date palm with a single long woody seed.

  41. Indirection & Abstraction • Ontology and ontology patterns are the applied use of long-time, fundamental engineering patterns of indirection and abstraction. • Chapter 7 in Adaptive Information: Improving Business Through Semantic Interoperability, Grid Computing, and Enterprise Integration, Pollock and Hodgson, Wiley Inter-science, 2004.

  42. Indirection & Abstraction • Selected tidbits: • Ontology is simply the enabler for software engineers and architects to apply core problem solving patterns in new and innovative ways. • Indirection is a concept that is used to plan for future uncertainty. • Simply put, indirection is when two things need to be coupled, but instead of coupling them directly, a third thing is used to mediate direct, brittle connections between them. • By leveraging indirection in the fundamental aspects of the technology, semantic interoperability is built for change, and this built-in flexibility differentiates semantic technologies from other information-driven approaches.

  43. Indirection & Abstraction • Architects of both software and physical structures routinely use the principle of abstraction to isolate complex components and reduce the scope of a problem to be solved (“see the forest for the trees”). By definition, ontology is abstraction and is the ultimate abstraction tool for information. • Example: Imagine a scenario of using a pivot data model without abstraction – it would require the aggregation of all of the data elements in a particular community – the result could be the a community of 500+ applications, each application with approximately 100 data elements, requiring a pivot model with about 50,000 data elements – an abstracted model could conceivably be capable of representing this information in far fewer than about 100 data elements! • See Demonstrations of SICoP Pilot Projects for EPA Managers, August 16, 2004, Semantic Information Management (Unicorn): Integrating Health and Environmental Information to Protect American Children”, at http://web-services.gov

  44. Creating an RDF Vocabulary • A vocabulary or schema is a rules-based dictionary that defines the elements of importance to a domain and then describes how these elements relate to one another. • If RDF is a way of describing data, then RDF Schema can be considered a domain-neutral way of describing metadata that can be used to describe the data for a domain-specific vocabulary. • By creating a domain-neutral specification to describe resources, the same specification can then be used with many different domains but still processed by the same RDF agents or parsed by the same RDF parsers. • To better understand this statement, see the next slides for an explanation of metadata’s role in existing applications and RDF Schema as a metadata repository!

  45. Creating an RDF Vocabulary • Metadata’s role in existing applications: • Relational database management systems can be used for many different applications and to store many different types of data because they use metadata structures. • For example consider an application database with three database tables that are all related to one another by a Primary Key (PK) relationship (see next slide). • To facilitate the multiple uses of the same storage mechanism for different domains, the relational database schema defines elements such as database tables, primary and secondary keys, and columns that provide a domain-neutral description of the information about the different aspects of the table objects. • Within any table-like structure, you can think of metadata as column headers converted to rows. The describer then becomes the described!

  46. Creating an RDF Vocabulary CUSTOMER ORDER PK CUSTOMER_ID PK ORDER_ID CUSTOMER_ORDER PK, FK1 PK, FK2 CUSTOMER_ID ORDER_ID Important Note: A key characteristic of the relational data model is that the data is viewed logically rather than physically. Data is viewed within the context of its use rather than its physical storage method. RDF Schema provides the same functionality as the relational database schema. It provides the resources necessary to describe the objects and properties of a domain-specific schema.

  47. Ontologies Versus Relational Databases Source: SEMAG!X at the SWANS Conference, April 7-8, 2005.

  48. RDF Inferencing in Oracle’s Spatial Network Data Model Source: 39. Grandfathers – With Inferencing in http://web-services.gov/scope08162005a.ppt

  49. Metadata Repositories Source: Gartner, June 30, 2005, Magic Quadrant for Metadata Repositories, 2H05 to 1H06, Michael J. Blechar, ID Number: G00129274.

  50. Metadata Repositories • CIO Council’s Web Services WG and SICoP Pilots: • MetaMatrix – Visionaries Quadrant. Recall slide 35. • Flashline – “Flashline has been at the leadership front in terms of promoting market interest in areas such as software asset portfolio management, governance, compliancy and Web services/SOA.” • See http://www.componenttechnology.org/Awards/ • Unicorn - Visionaries Quadrant. Recall slide 43. • Also Improving Rapid First Response Event Ontology Pilot and Water Data Harmonization Pilot. • LogicLibrary – “LogicLibrary has helped drive market interest in service and component reuse, SOA governance and integration with leading service-oriented development products.” • See http://www.componenttechnology.org/Awards/ • Demo: http://www.logidexassetcenter.com/assetcenter.jsp

More Related