Link to page: 6.1 - Overview of Semantic Infrastructure 2.0 Architecture
Comment 04 on Section 6.1
Section 6 > Overview of Semantic Infrastructure 2.0 Architecture November 22 Version
"The column "Component Name" contains values of different type (things associated with "Box Name" and things without that).
The difference between the "Artifact Access" and "Artifact Registry and Retrieve" boxes is not clear from their description.
The registry service integrates with the reasoning system but the Semantic Reasoning Platform sits on top of the architecture. Assuming top-to-bottom reads as "uses/needs/ accesses" this does not fit. I would expect the Semantic Reasoning Platform on top of the Semantic Knowledge Store, and the validation component on top of the reasoning platform.
The service discovery box should mention that it is used by the Orchestration box (if orchestration is intended as composition). Otherwise a box indicating service composition is needed."
Resolution:
The chart provides a draft description of the diagram to improve accessibility. The diagram is not meant to be read with any significance of Top to bottom. Therefore the issues may not apply. Eric Schripsema
Comment 03 on Section 6.1
Section 6 > Overview of Semantic Infrastructure 2.0 Capabilities and Services November 22 Version
"Reasoning and Inference": it is not clear how inference is different from reasoning, except that it might be more specific. I think this should just be "Reasoning" or in correspondence with earlier "Decision Support". Later it turns even in "Knowledge Engineering, Inference, and Reasoning".
Resolution:
Reluctant to reduce to just reasoning since it may be argued that not all reasoning is inference, but made this consistent. What is missing are the actual functional profiles. Eric Schripsema
Comment 02 on Section 6.1
November 22 Version
The purpose of the functional profiles is not clear: it seems a one-to-one mapping of the functional requirements. Additionally, the paragraph above that explains the relation with the corresponding OASIS Reference Models, Ontologies, and Architecture is unclear: why are these standards in this document represented as Semantic Profiles, and what is the relation with the following functional profiles.
Resolution:
The profiles are the bulleted items, and are organized in the document according to the requirements. Eric Schripsema
Comment 01 on Section 6.1
November 22 Version
Similar remarks as for Section 5 hold. For example, that service discovery would allow service developers to specify rich metadata (this is the other way around).
Resolution:
This service is the enabling service which allows the expression of the metadata and is therefore correct. Eric Schripsema
