The Ontology Summit is just a curious coincidence, and that
particular audience is not one of the constituencies I was referring
to, which would be the DoDAF Metamodel group and the NCOIC Services
WG and other Emergency Management oriented groups. I'll have to give
Actor another look, though unless there's an overriding purpose I
will stay with 7/28/10 version until convinced otherwise. Since I
wasn't having the problem with it that others have expressed, I
would really like to hear an exceptional overriding purpose or
concern. I understand that the group judgement rules. I'm just
saying what I think, but I will look at it again when/if I can between
now and Wednesday's meeting.
Cheers,
Rex
On 1/31/11 10:44 AM, mpoulin@usa.com wrote:
8CD8F8E043DFC80-10EC-120F@web-mmc-d04.sysops.aol.com"
type="cite">@ Peter
for
the point 1 - I do exactly as you said in my diagrams; there
is not problem at all
With
regard to point 2, I'd prefer to deal with the composite
definition as the whole one, without splitting them into
separate words; for example: if the definition of 'Peer Social Structure' does not refer
to 'Peer' , I would ignore all relationships with the term
'peer' despite its presence in the name. IN other words, if I
do a search against this term, I ignore all cases where words,
peer, social, and structure appear separately.
@Rex
I
hope that TC addresses the question: should we define all
words we use or English is till valid language for expressing
our ideas? :-) I can imagine how sticky the Ontology Summit might be but we are writing
to not-necessary-ontology-people. If we start define things
like 'fact', 'evidence', or 'listener', we risk creating
the situation that nobody would talk to us or read the RAF
because people loose the confidence in every word they read.
In several cases, we re-define terms that have nothing to do
with service orientation or architecture. This is what I am
afraid of and talking about.
I have
attached an example of the diagram I am drawing where you
can see that one basis term is defined while another term
references to the first one.
- Michael
P.S. In the
diagram you can see the basis definitions (as immediate
children of the element<<Defined the same in
both>>: Actor, Participant and Delegate. While I
assume there should be some dependencies between these
terms, I have not expected two loops of definitions:
Actor-Delegate-Actor (marked by red arrows) and
Actor-Participant-Actor (marked
by orange arrows). Well, at the end
of the day, the purpose of this diagram is exactly this -
find discrepancies in the definitions. BTW, you can see
elements in the basis definition marked with the version
dates and explicit texts of these definitions (sorry,
in the given picture these texts are not really readable)
If you want to see the diagram I am drawing, you can use any
XML Schema visualisation tool, like Altova's XMLSPY and ask
me to send you the Schema's text.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks <rex.brooks@ncoic.org>
To: peter@peterfbrown.com
Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 5:03 pm
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Finalised definitions list and
comparison table
For clarity, value is often in the eye of the beholder,
and we need to keep in mind that the one thing that I
have heard from the constituencies I work with is that
they like having definitions because it keeps them
grounded. As fates would have it, I'm co-champion of the
Values and Metrics Track of this year's Ontology Summit.
Very sticky wicket!
Cheers,
Rex
On 1/31/11 7:29 AM, Peter F Brown wrote:
Hi Michael:
1 – I was asked to indicate, for
each concept that we define (= term) whether
other concepts are used in that definition. For
example, the definition of
‘capability’ (whichever one you
choose) uses the term ‘RWE’. The
objective was to indicate simply dependencies
between concepts defined, no more.
2 – I couldn’t agree more
but they are listed as per the TC’s
request. This needs to be addressed by the
editors of the sections concerned.
3 – I agree but others
don’t – it is an issue the TC
needs to address – Chris and I cut back
radically on the number of formally defined
concepts precisely for the reasons you invoke.
We need to distinguish those concepts that have
a particular meaning and value for our work: I
would suggest they must meet both criteria
(particular meaning AND value) to be considered
for inclusion as a formal definition.
Regards,
Peter
Hi Peter,
1) I've found only
the columns where you specify the line number
that refers to the definition in different
versions and its occurrences in different
places of the document but not "A new column in
those sheets with definitions, that
indicates the other concepts referred
to in the term definition" - it is not obvious
that the referred lines belong to other
concepts. I would prefer, if you do not mind,
having references directly to other
definitions in addition to other points in the
text
2) I've found it is
really difficult to deal with composite terms
like 'Peer Social Structure' because there are
too many potential dependencies separately for
'peer' and 'social structure' that may belong
to totally different contexts. For example,
reference to the line 2717 leads to 'peer' but
'social structure' is not even mentioned
3) in general, I find
our extended vocabulary a bit artificial and
difficult to operate with: we use relatively
common words of plain English in the diagrams
and text AND re-define them in our special
definitions. Since the words are common, the
reader may not suspect that there is special
ontology/semantic is meant in our vocabulary.
I am afraid, it is overcomplicated. Here is
one of many examples:
our
term Listener is commonly understood as
something that listens; one
can comprehend this 'something' as a noun -
an actor, an object, an entity, a
participant, a stakeholder, a system, a
human that listens - it is simple and easy;
instead, our definition says: "A listener
is an actor [OK!] who performs
actions [wait a minute, this starts
the mixture of concerns!] needed to
acquire [where this comes from?] a
communication [why is this about
a communication only? If an actor listens
to acquire not a communication but
something else, e.g. RWE, it is not a
Listener any more, is it?..]"
For given example, I
would not define term Listener at all, it is
clearly understood w/o our definition.
Chris
and I have finished a new version of
the definitions table, as requested.
The
attached version includes:
-
A
new sheet indicating where terms are
used in Figures – we
have “only†(yes, there
are more than 150 of them…)
included those terms that have not
already been listed having a formal
definition – we indicate the
first occurrence of the term in a
diagram as well as (where it is
defined) the line number of the
definition in the 17 Jan draft
-
A
new column in those sheets with
definitions, that indicates the other
concepts referred to in the term
definition
-
The
‘unused’ list is now only
terms that are really not used at all,
anywhere, in the text but may
still appear on a diagram
We
have not yet included the revised
understanding of the concepts of
state, shared state, shareable state,
joint action, interaction, RWE,
execution context – as well as
our further understanding of the
relationship of those concepts to the
SOA ecosystem – I will write up
my notes from the offline discussions
and circulate those later Thursday.
Transforming our
Relationships with Information
Technologies
Blog
pensivepeter.wordpress.com
P.O.
Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
|