[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 - ProposedSOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded
I suspect that no matter how specific or coherent a relationship we define, the very nature of what a relationship is, in terms of modeling and logic, leads pretty inescapably to requiring RDF to express it. I would not want to start on that path unless we could a thorough job of it separately, not just add a touch of it to what we have done so far. Cheers, Rex At 1:39 PM -0400 5/1/06, Chiusano Joseph wrote: ><Quote> >The *only* thing we might do is define a set of coherent relationships >and use them in our diagrams. ></Quote> > >Yes, that is what I recommend. It may have been poorly worded, but the >intent of the issue (as I discussed it with the submitter) was to simply >provide clear, understandable relationship names - not ones specific to >OWL. > >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: Frank McCabe [mailto:frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com] >Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 1:36 PM >To: Rex Brooks >Cc: Chiusano Joseph; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >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 -- 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]