You've convinced me. Thanks.
Joe (who has been to FUDville, and made it back to
tell the tale;)
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:14 PM
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm]
Groups - Proposed
SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships
Names.xls) uploaded
Joseph:
It is a valid and well documented fact that first
order logic has to be
defined before anything meaningful can be done at a
lower level. That
is why UML is favored from many software
professionals - it is not
ambiguous. Every ontologist I know would agree with
this basic tenet. If
you and I think your example of
"involves-information-characterized-by"
as a label between "interaction" and "information
model" is different
that what the other thinks, the entire label is going
to through the RM
into FUDville.
Without some kind of formal convention for the labels
and notation,
coupled with FOL, it is very realistic that two
different people will
read two different things out of the same diagram.
I favor keeping the drawings sufficiently ambiguous
and any specifics of
the relationship should be captured in the text
describing the things.
Otherwise, we are on the hook to define the FOL and
notational
conventions for the mind maps.
It was a nice thought - let's just let others do
this.
Duane
*******************************
*******************************
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm]
Groups - Proposed
SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships
Names.xls) uploaded
Duane,
With all due respect, I think you're over-analyzing
this possibility. We
had no problem doing this in the DRM, so I don't see
why it should be
different here (and Mike Daconta led that initiative
from the technical
standpoint). However, I yield to yours and the TC's
consensus.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:44 PM
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm]
Groups - Proposed
SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships
Names.xls) uploaded
It is *not* that simple. Imagine you draw a line from A to B
and label
it "owns".
What does that mean?
A owns B
A owns B and B is owned by A
For all that is true in the statement A owns B, the
inverse is equally
true A owns B and B is not even aware that A exists A
owns B and B is
aware that A exists but does not reciprocate to the
statement.
A owns B as expressed by entity X and neither A nor B
are aware of the
label A owns B as visible from A but not from B A
owns B as visible from
A and B A owns B and B is aware of A but does not
have any specific
label on the relationship.
Etc...
There are literally 50 different variations on this
one simple bit. Now
throw in C.
A owns B and C is owned by B.
Does A even know about C?
Etc...
Sorry - this is not something we can define given the
abstract nature of
our RM without committing first order logic to the
spec to define what
it means.
Duane
*******************************
*******************************
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm]
Groups - Proposed
SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships
Names.xls) uploaded
<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
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 1:36 PM
To: Rex Brooks
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
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:52 PM
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:
documen
t_id=17877
Download Document:
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