Agreed - however I should clarify that my message below was not in
regards to OWL; it was only in regards to the notion of having labels for
relationship names in the spec, and nothing more (i.e. it would have been valid
even if OWL had not yet been invented).
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514
C: 202-251-0731
Non-normative should be
used only for illustrating points with examples or other errata/material that
adds to the conversation to help clarify the main point. To take the base
RM and extend it with an OWL version of the RM would not meet this. While
an interesting project, it may be difficult to make such an ontological
representation by trying to condense several paragraphs describing the
relationships between two items into one single label comprised of 2-4
terms.
It may be something to
try however once the REA is well underway. Perhaps as a
SC.
D
From: Chiusano
Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 3:29
AM To: peter@justbrown.net; Ken
Laskey; Duane Nickull Cc:
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
What if we were to
include relationship names but state that they are
non-normative?
From: Peter F
Brown [mailto:peter@justbrown.net] Sent: Wed 5/3/2006 3:10 AM To: 'Ken Laskey'; 'Duane
Nickull' 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 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----- From: Ken Laskey
[mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Sent: 02
May 2006 20:07 To: Duane Nickull 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
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
*******************************
Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
<http://www.adobe.com/>
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical
Committee Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/ <http://technoracle.blogspot.com/>
*******************************
________________________________
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 8:04 PM
To: Chiusano Joseph Cc: Duane
Nickull;
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
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
Visit us online@
http://www.boozallen.com <http://www.boozallen.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com <mailto:dnickull@adobe.com>
]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006
4:14 PM
To: Chiusano Joseph;
soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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
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
*******************************
Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
<http://www.adobe.com> Vice Chair -
UN/CEFACT
http://www.uncefact.org <http://www.uncefact.org> / Chair -
OASIS SOA Reference Model
Technical
Committee Personal
Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com <http://technoracle.blogspot.com>
/
*******************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com <mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006
12:47 PM
To: Duane Nickull;
soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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
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
Visit us online@
http://www.boozallen.com <http://www.boozallen.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com <mailto:dnickull@adobe.com>
]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006
3:44 PM
To: Chiusano Joseph;
soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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
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
*******************************
Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
<http://www.adobe.com> Vice Chair -
UN/CEFACT
http://www.uncefact.org <http://www.uncefact.org> / Chair -
OASIS SOA Reference Model
Technical
Committee Personal
Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com <http://technoracle.blogspot.com>
/
*******************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com <mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006
10:40 AM
To:
soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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
<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 <http://www.boozallen.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank McCabe [mailto:frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com <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 <mailto: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 <http://www.boozallen.com>
-----Original
Message-----
From: chiusano_joseph@bah.com [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com <mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:52
PM
To:
soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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? <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/ <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
---
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
|