Even if they are non-normative, they will be understood as representing
something. My concern is that if there is no consensus on the actual names
of the relationships, then we had better leave them out completely. As Duane
points out, even if the lines are not labelled in the figure, the nature of
the relationships is elucidated in the surrounding text.
I'd still thus vote for leaving out any labels on the relationship lines.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 03 May 2006 12:29
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Proposed SOA-RM
Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded
What if we were to include relationship names but state that they are
non-normative?
Joe
________________________________
Sent: Wed 5/3/2006 3:10 AM
To: 'Ken Laskey'; 'Duane Nickull'
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Proposed SOA-RM
Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded
I haven't had chance to read through all the postings on this but my gut
feeling is: keep the relationship names off. The volume of traffic on this
one issue seems to reflect that there could be a problem, and a whole new
review. I would support the idea also of removing the arrows, although we
did say - in the very early discussions on this - that the diagrams are
supposed to be descriptive not prescriptive. Therefore, any attempt to add
"semantics" to the relationships is going to induce people into assuming
(probably rightly) that the labels are significant.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 02 May 2006 20:07
To: Duane Nickull
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Proposed SOA-RM
Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded
Duane,
I suggest we look at say Figure 4, come up with a labeled version of it, and
then decide whether it improves understanding and readability of the text.
Joe's spreadsheet assumed the arrow directions as they currently exist and
we already know these are inconsistent. Frank at one point suggested
getting rid of the arrows completely. Does that remove ambiguity or add
more? Do labels just add clutter? Let's look at the alternatives.
I'll volunteer to help on this but I may not be able to get to it in the
next few days.
Ken
On May 2, 2006, at 1:15 PM, Duane Nickull wrote:
Ken:
In general, I do not consider the relationships unlabelled. We
actually have surrounding text which specifies the nature of the
relationships. The simple labels are far too ambiguous IMO without further
qualification.
Duane
*******************************
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee
*******************************
________________________________
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 8:04 PM
To: Chiusano Joseph
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm] Groups -
Proposed SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded
Oh well, this is what I get for being away from email all day.
Duane is absolutely correct if and only if I intend to use the
relationships to infer new knowledge. That is not our intent; indeed as Joe
mentions wrt DRM 2.0, the entire intent is one of illustration. Having
unlabeled arcs as they are now says something is related to something and
gives no idea to what any of the relationships are. Looked at in any
arbitrary detail, how can I say anything is definitely not related to
anything else? Certainly, there are some relationships implied in the text
that are not in the current figures and some relationships in the figures
that require rather contorted names because they are not referred to in the
text.
The purpose of the figures are to provide some helpful demarcation
in text which just starts to run on forever. The idea was the figures would
act as a signpost for the concepts currently under discussion; labeling the
arcs consistently with the text provides a shorthand summary.
That is all the figures and the labeling would be meant to do.
I welcome anyone to come up with an OWL or any other ontology. I
would be interested in the result but that is not a part of RM 1.0.
Ken
On May 1, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
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
*******************************
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT
SOA Reference Model Technical
*******************************
-----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
*******************************
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT
SOA Reference Model Technical
*******************************
-----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
---
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