[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] RE: Resolving Various Policy Languages with Ontologies
NO NO NO NO NO NO ...
At 12:01 PM 10/12/2005, Rex Brooks wrote:
>That's an EXCELLENT idea!
>
>Rex
>
>At 8:13 AM -0700 10/12/05, Frank McCabe wrote:
>>Hey, why not have a semantic mapping TC :-)
>>
>>On Oct 11, 2005, at 7:57 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>>
>>>One thing I have advocated in work outside SOA-RM (yes, Virginia,
>>>there is another life) is the need to understand what are the
>>>concepts that go into a mapping, what are the properties of a
>>>mapping, and (dare I say) what does an ontology that represents
>>>mapping look like. That very much gets into how one could
>>>possibly do effective mediation. But that is a whole separate topic.
>>>
>>>Ken
>>>
>>>P.S. No, I do not propose we create a Semantic Mapping TC.
>>>
>>>
>>>On Oct 11, 2005, at 7:36 PM, Duane Nickull wrote:
>>>
>>>>This was the base theorem for the Core Components Technical
>>>>Specification (CCTS) which mandates a set of contexts as a
>>>>qualifier for every semantic entity. Even the simplest of data
>>>>elements (FirstNameOfPerson) has different semantics if it
>>>>appears in a PO as //BuyerParty/Contact/FirstNameOfPerson vs.
>>>>//SellerParty/Contact/FirstNameOfPerson. Makes it hard to create
>>>>one size fits all mapping rules.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is also why I drew the sinkhole with us staring down at semantics ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Duane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:03 PM
>>>>To: Matt MacKenzie
>>>>Cc: chiusano_joseph@bah.com; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org;
>>>>danny_thornton2@yahoo.com
>>>>Subject: Re: [soa-rm] RE: Resolving Various Policy Languages with
>>>>Ontologies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mappings cannot always be complete because, as Frank notes, an
>>>>ontology exists for a purpose (or variations of a similar
>>>>purpose) and does not express all possible knowledge on a
>>>>subject. This does not mean there isn't value in a partial
>>>>mapping or mappings among a collection of ontologies. Ideally,
>>>>if there was information missing to which one needed to map, this
>>>>information and corresponding mappings could be formally captured
>>>>and expand the knowledge base for future uses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Oct 11, 2005, at 1:24 PM, Matt MacKenzie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have adapted a proprietary access control language to xacml,
>>>>and merely mapping concepts was not enough. It was useful, but
>>>>didn't fill in all the blanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-matt
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>Matt MacKenzie
>>>>
>>>>Development Manager, LiveCycle Registry
>>>>
>>>>Adobe Systems Incorporated
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>From: Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
>>>>
>>>>To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org>;
>>>>Danny Thornton <danny_thornton2@yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>>>Sent: Tue Oct 11 13:10:51 2005
>>>>
>>>>Subject: RE: [soa-rm] RE: Resolving Various Policy Languages with
>>>>Ontologies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><Quote>
>>>>
>>>>For example, if I have a service that uses XACML policy and another
>>>>
>>>>service that uses EPAL policy, I could resolve the differences between
>>>>
>>>>the two policy languages using an ontology for both policy languages at
>>>>
>>>>the policy decision point.
>>>>
>>>></Quote>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I believe this has already been stated on some form or another by others
>>>>
>>>>who have replied, but this looks to me like the job for a "security
>>>>
>>>>policy reference model" (or similar name) that contains those (minimal)
>>>>
>>>>concepts that are most central to the domain, rather than an ontology. I
>>>>
>>>>see an ontology as a semantic model that may be derived using the
>>>>
>>>>reference model, along with multiple other representations such as
>>>>
>>>>concrete security architectures, UML class diagrams, E-R diagrams, etc.
>>>>
>>>>One single reference model begets all of these and more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Joe (living in reference model world these days)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Joseph Chiusano
>>>>
>>>>Booz Allen Hamilton
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>700 13th St. NW
>>>>
>>>>Washington, DC 20005
>>>>
>>>>O: 202-508-6514 <= new office number as of 09/19/05
>>>>
>>>>C: 202-251-0731
>>>>
>>>>Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
>>>>
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:50 AM
>>>>
>>>>To: Danny Thornton
>>>>
>>>>Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>>
>>>>Subject: [soa-rm] RE: Resolving Various Policy Languages with
>>>>
>>>>Ontologies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Post from Danny Thornton:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>(he mentions the "O" and "S" words)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>From: Danny Thornton [mailto:danny_thornton2@yahoo.com]
>>>>
>>>>Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:26 PM
>>>>
>>>>To: Duane Nickull
>>>>
>>>>Subject: Resolving Various Policy Languages with Ontologies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hi Duane,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The following is an e-mail dicussion I would like to have
>>>>
>>>>with soa-rm group:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have been reading WD-SOA-RM-09 to get an idea of the
>>>>
>>>>terminology/concepts for resolving various policy languages
>>>>
>>>>in a service oriented architecture. Section
>>>>
>>>>2.2.3.2 of WD-SOA-RM-09 discusses the limits of description.
>>>>
>>>>Section 2.3.1.2 states that an ontology can be defined to
>>>>
>>>>interpret strings and other tokens in the data.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In the discussions I've had about resolving various policy
>>>>
>>>>languages in an SOA, I've hijacked the ontology concept and
>>>>
>>>>applied it as a general concept for resolving differences in
>>>>
>>>>policy languages.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>For example, if I have a service that uses XACML policy and
>>>>
>>>>another service that uses EPAL policy, I could resolve the
>>>>
>>>>differences between the two policy languages using an
>>>>
>>>>ontology for both policy languages at the policy decision point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>For section 2.3.1.2 of the WD-SOA-RM-09, does anyone have any
>>>>
>>>>thoughts on expanding the concept of ontologies beyond the
>>>>
>>>>service description's data model?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Danny
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>__________________________________
>>>>
>>>>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>
>>>>Ken Laskey
>>>>
>>>>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
>>>>
>>>>7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
>>>>
>>>>McLean VA 22102-7508
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>---
>>>Ken Laskey
>>>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
>>>7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
>>>McLean VA 22102-7508
>
>
>--
>Rex Brooks
>President, CEO
>Starbourne Communications Design
>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>Berkeley, CA 94702
>Tel: 510-849-2309
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Ken
Laskey \
| MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 |
| 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 |
\ McLean VA 22102-7508 /
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]