OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] OASIS' Ref Ontology for SOA


I think the key to the importance of mediation is 
third party authentication where it applies.

Anything above the level of SLAs will probably 
require extensive policy adherence that may need 
to be assured by a mediator, such as credit card 
authentication and verification. Some of this 
might be covered by highly constrained shared 
semantics, but the greater the value of the real 
world effects, the greater will be the need for 
mediation in matching needs and capabilities.

Granted most business will need only a public 
level of authentication that can be based on 
shared semantics. However, Emergency Management 
and Healthcare are two areas where mediation is 
necessary to ensure that:
non-repudiation is clearly established by a third 
party (gov) which can assure liability in 
emergency notification (alerts);
security of personal health records (phr), at the 
responsibility and liability of the individual, 
and clinician issued electronic health records 
(ehr) for which responsibility and liability ride 
with the clinician must be preserved; and,
emergency communications between and among 
service providers, local, state, national and 
international jurisdictions are also clear 
established.

I'm sure David can supply chapter and verse for 
the measures required by pub-sub systems that 
must implemented to provide the foregoing.

Cheers,
Rex


At 2:35 PM -0500 12/2/08, Mike Poulin wrote:
>While I am also in favor of mediation, I see a 
>few open issues this this approach and RA take:
>1) we state that the service has to be defined 
>and announced via Service Description. The 
>latter has to be understood by a potential 
>consumer, i.e. information in the Service 
>Description has to be based on the ontologies 
>and semantic known to the potential consumer.
>2) if the service/service provider shares the 
>ontologies and semantic with the potential 
>consumer, there is no need for mediation
>3) if the service/service provider DOES NOT 
>share the ontologies and semantic with the 
>potential consumer, the mediation might help but 
>how the consumer would understand what the 
>service is about in the first place (i.e. from 
>the Service Description)?
>4) if the mediation should be used for 
>@bridging@ needs with capabilities, it must be 
>specified in the Service Contract, otherwise, 
>there is not guarantee that the service 
>satisfies real needs of the consumer (due to 
>misunderstanding of the capabilities)
>
>Any thoughts how to address these issues?
>
>- Michael
>
>
>P.S. To my knowledge, Semantic Web addresses 
>only interface (connectivity) semantics but does 
>not deal with Service Description, Service 
>Contract, service busienss functionlaity and RWE 
>(besides the part of it visible through the 
>interface)
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rex Brooks"
>To: "Ken Laskey" , "Danny Thornton"
>Cc: "Estefan, Jeff A" , "soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org"
>Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] OASIS' Ref Ontology for SOA
>Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:14:51 -0800
>
>
>I noticed the SEE starting up, and thought it was more related to
>BPEL, WSBPEL etc. Wrong.
>
>Dave clued me about it this morning following Jeff's post, which I
>hadn't looked at up til then. Since it directly relates to the EM
>Reference Information Model SC I chair, and the EDXL-RIM work we're
>doing there, I'm in the middle of reading it through and making
>sure I download and understand their references, which include some
>highly structured first order logic, specifically SWSO, but SWSL,
>too, which this document only touches on. They're specifically
>distinguishing themselves from our work, as Danny noted. They are
>apparently confining themselves to UML for illustrative purposes
>and WSML for formal representation, and I'm not fluent in that
>language, sigh. More homework, oh goody! I guess I'll find out if
>my tools can accept it as input.
>
>While this document is not huge or a conceptually big stretch, the
>implications may well be. Because it places a mediator square in
>the middle, I understand Dave's attraction and mine, but WSML has 4
>specs and the abstract syntax says that a WSML Description is a
>5-tuple and actually makes good sense to me, but...
>
>I guess the big question I have is who are the businesses are that
>are going to use this? I would really hate to try to explain this
>to a manager... or even a CIO.
>
>Cheers,
>Rex
>
>At 2:54 PM -0500 12/1/08, Ken Laskey wrote:
>>  They define Semantic Web Services (SWS) as "self-contained,
>>  self-describing, semantically marked-up software resources that
>>  can be published, discovered, composed and executed across the
>>  Web in a task driven semi-automated way". They state further
>>  that SWS "can be defined as the dynamic part of the semantic web".
>>
>>  I believe their intent is to distinguish SWS from web services
>>  where the only description is WSDL.
>>
>>  Basically, SOA-RA looks toward everything they want in a SWS
>>  except we don't push the details of how you represent the
>>  description. We agree on the type of information you need and
>>  what you intend to accomplish if you have it. We have no
>>  problems with it being connected with the semantic web, we just
>>  don't require it. We also talk about mediation and while it
>>  certainly sounds necessary, we don't require it either.
>>
>>  I need to look at the details, but I expect it is an
>>  implementation of our more abstract discussion.
>>
>>  Ken
>>
>>  On Dec 1, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Danny Thornton wrote:
>>
>>>  At this point, quite a bit of the document is currently a review of
>>>  Ontologies in general and the OASIS SOA RM. Currently, section 4
>>>  contains most of the new material. The emphasis of section 4 is
>>>  semantics based service description with the inclusion of mediators for
>>>  the purpose of automated ontology-based reasoning for matching needs and
>>>  capabilities in a SOA-based ecosystem.
>>>
>>>  Comparing and contrasting the OASIS Ref Ontology for SOA with the OASIS
>>>  SOA RA would mostly be a comparison between section 4 of the Ref
>>>  Ontology for SOA and Section 4.1, Service Description, of the OASIS SOA
>>>  RA. With some time and effort, this could be a merging point between the
>>>  two documents.
>>>
>>>  The Reference Ontology for Semantic Service Oriented Architectures does
>>>  distinguish itself from the OASIS SOA RA by stating:
>>>
>>>  "The Reference Ontology presented in this document is a further step
>>>  towards formalization of the Reference Model but also accommodates the
>>>  extensions associated with Semantic Web Services resulting in Semantic
>>>  SOAs. Since the start of this work, the SOA-RM committee have also
>>>  started work on a Reference Architecture, which also aims at further
>>>  formalisation of the reference model, but we consider ontologisation
>>>  central to the semantics-based approach and diverge. Indeed when we say
>>>  Reference Architecture we shall refer to a reference architecture for
>>>  SEEs, not to the SOA Reference Architecture. Furthermore when we say
>>>  Concrete Architectures we refer to implementations of semantics-enabled
>>>  SOAs such as WSMX [2] , IRS III [3] and METEOR-S [4] ."
>>>
>>>  Danny
>>>
>>>  -------- Original Message --------
>>>  Subject: [soa-rm-ra] OASIS' Ref Ontology for SOA
>>>  From: "Estefan, Jeff A"
>>>  <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>
>>>  Date: Mon, December 01, 2008 7:00 am
>>>  To:
>>>  "soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org"
>>>  <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
>>>
>>>  Duane and Frank,
>>>
>>>  Was wondering if you've seen this body of work (see attached spec).
>>>  Unlike TOG SOA ontology, this reference ontology for SOA is based off
>>>  the SOA-RM. I didn't even realize this spec existed until recently
>>>  when I was trying to come up to speed with SOA work in the open
>>>  standards communities.
>>>
>>>  CheersŠ
>>>
>>>  - Jeff, JPL
>>>
>>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>>  generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>  >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>>>  generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>>>  https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>  Ken Laskey
>>
>>  MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
>>
>>  7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
>>
>>  McLean VA 22102-7508
>
>
>--
>Rex Brooks
>President, CEO
>Starbourne Communications Design
>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>Berkeley, CA 94702
>Tel: 510-898-0670
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>--
>Be Yourself @ mail.com!
>Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
>Get a Free Account at <http://www.mail.com/Product.aspx>www.mail.com!


--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]