[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Proposed SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded
I do not think that we should go anywhere near this. We did not charter ourselves to do an OWL ontology. The *only* thing we might do is define a set of coherent relationships and use them in our diagrams. Frank On May 1, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Rex Brooks wrote: > Yup, > > If we are going to provide relationship names to accommodate OWL, > we need to be specific about which version of OWL we want to > support or CAN support, given the abstract nature of the Reference > Model. > > I would be happy with OWL DL, less happy with OWL Lite, and opposed > to OWL Full. Going into the reasons is something we should take up > in the f2f, because it is too lengthy for an email. However, I > would prefer to put this on hold for a v2.0 which I suspect is > almost unavoidable, though one hoped it would not be given > sufficient abstraction. > > That said, I would select relationship names directly from the > realm of RDF in general and RDF Schema in particular and, for me, > OWL DL and not make up any new ones and I would start with > extremely basic, very abstract, relationships and not use any terms > that are open to interpretation. In other words, I would try to > start with compliance with first-order logic. Going beyond basic > classes and properties to subClassOf and subPropertyOf is about as > far as I would go. Otherwise we open the door to a purely endless > exercise in futility. It would take a lot of work and I don't think > we have time for it in this version. > > This is probably not a good idea. > > I would prefer to see it be a separate specification, with its own > set of requirements starting with mereology from general to > specific, where you define things in the isPartOf relationship not > the consistsOf relationship. The difference is that there are some > accepted rules for mereology, and it works with formal logic. If we > are going to accommodate OWL now we need to make sure we are not > setting ourselves up for a bunch of logical contradictions by going > full steam ahead before looking at the landscape and figuring out > what kind of roadmap we need. > > I think the spreadsheet is a good way to get concepts out where you > can look at them and pick away at them. I just don't think this is > likely to get well baked enough to include in this round, and > perhaps ought to be its own specification, a SOA ontology based on > the RM. That would give us plenty of time to noodle and boil this > down to workability. > > Regards, > Rex > > > > At 11:05 AM -0400 5/1/06, Chiusano Joseph wrote: >> I've updated the subject for this thread to reflect the Issue #. Any >> thoughts on the proposed relationship names? >> >> Joe >> >> Joseph Chiusano >> Associate >> Booz Allen Hamilton >> >> 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20005 >> O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731 >> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: chiusano_joseph@bah.com [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:52 PM >> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [soa-rm] Groups - Proposed SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM >> Relationships Names.xls) uploaded >> >> The document named Proposed SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM >> Relationships >> Names.xls) has been submitted by Mr. Joseph Chiusano to the OASIS SOA >> Reference Model TC document repository. >> >> Document Description: >> This is related to issue #525, which described "the potential >> creation >> of an OWL ontology for SOA-RM to be considered as an upper >> ontology for >> different architectures guided by SOA-RM, in order to provide >> semantic >> interoperability between these architectures and their >> implementations >> (instances), once they are SOA-RM based.". The submitter expressed >> how >> the lack of relationship names in our spec inhibited this. >> >> I have worked with the submitter and Ken Laskey to create this >> spreadsheet of proposed relationship names for all figures that >> contain >> directed relationships. Please review and comment; you may wish to >> use >> the spreadsheet row # when referring to specific relationships. We >> have >> provided 2 sets of proposed names for each relationship (except the >> final >> one) - one primary, and one alternate. >> >> Please also keep in mind that some of the proposed relationship names >> may bring with them minor alterations in the relationships >> themselves. >> >> Thanks, >> Joe >> >> View Document Details: >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/document.php? >> documen >> t_id=17877 >> >> Download Document: >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/download.php/ >> 17877/S >> OA-RM%20Relationships%20Names.xls >> >> >> PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email >> application may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be >> able >> to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field >> of your >> web browser. >> >> -OASIS Open Administration > > > -- > Rex Brooks > President, CEO > Starbourne Communications Design > GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison > Berkeley, CA 94702 > Tel: 510-849-2309
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]