[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] OASIS' Ref Ontology for SOA
Michael, I have no problem with your examples or your intent. Do you have specific suggestions where the RA is weak and how you would strengthen it? I'm willing to do the final writing. Ken On Dec 3, 2008, at 7:23 AM, Mike Poulin wrote: > I do not know about this dog but I already have a scar of the > semantic/ontology bites from CORBA - the Look-up Service from CORBA > Object Trading spec suffered exact same problem - misunderstanding > between object/service offers (descriptions) and Look-up queries > (vocabulary). > > Thus, I can identify 3 areas that require references/inputs to/from > semantic sphere in RA: > 1. Content of the Service Description and Service Contracts - > templates and instances > 2. Service interface definition including semantic/ontology of the > message content, namespace semantic of the service operations, end- > point namespace semantic > 3. Service business functionality and RWE > > The last one becomes also important for such things as IBM Dynamic > Process Edition where the process actions specify desired business > functionality (not interfaces/WSDL) while the Edition looks-up for > matching services in the Registry/Repository dynamically, at the run- > time. > > As I said before, I am a fun of the mediation (thank you, Rex, I do > share your observation points). Nonetheless, I think we need to put > a bit more thoughts on the following scenario: > consumer's SW follows Semantic-A; provider's Service Description > (including interfaces and messages) uses Semantics-B; somehow they > meet and agree on a Mediator capable to translate between the > semantics A and B; the Mediator becomes a mandatory part of the > interactions and, thus, has to be trusted by all Participants, i.e. > it has to be controlled. I know, that in MOM we have similar model > but we enforce/standardise message formats (and still relax > semantics of the message content). > The discomfort I feel in the example is that the consumer and the > service have to send messages knowing that the receiver is incapable > of understanding them while the sender might not having any control > over the transaltor.... > > - Michael > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com> >> To: "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org>, "Mike Poulin" <mpoulin@usa.com> >> Cc: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com>, "Danny Thornton" <danny.thornton@scalablearchitectures.com >> >, "Estefan, Jeff A" <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>, "soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org >> " <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org> >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] OASIS' Ref Ontology for SOA >> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:48:49 -0800 >> >> >> I agree, but 3) may pose a problem if we expect the Reference >> Ontology using WSMO and WSML from SEE to handle the task unless we >> start an education campaign, even for the RDF and XML >> representations of WSML. I don't think we have either the bandwidth >> or the time to do much more than suggest that some attention needs >> to be paid to ensuring shared semantics at some basic level. >> >> Also, I haven't gotten far enough along with the Reference Ontology >> to relate it to Service Description and Service Contracts. Too bad >> I really actually like the WSML Abstract Syntax and Semantics >> definition of Description but its a 5-tuple >> (varID;O;G;WS;M)description, where >> varID is a WSML variant identifier, >> O is a set of Ontologies, >> G is a set of WSML goals, >> WS is a set of WSML Web services, and >> M is a set of WSML mediators. >> Ontologies are either RDF Schema, OWL DL or Full, or WSML ontologies. >> The latter are de ned in Section 1.6. The abstract syntax of RDF >> Schema and >> OWL Full ontologies is that of RDF [16]. The abstract syntax of OWL >> DL is >> defined in [18]. Extensions may allow other kinds of ontologies, >> e.g. OWL 1.1 >> (http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/) or the upcoming RIF standard (http: >> //www.w3.org/2005/rules/). and I don't think that dog's gonna >> hunt. ;-) >> >> Cheers, >> Rex >> >> At 3:00 PM -0500 12/2/08, Ken Laskey wrote: >>> see inline. Note, this is why the section on Assigning Values to >>> Description Instances also asks for semantics. >>> >>> On Dec 2, 2008, at 2:35 PM, 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. >>>> >>> >>> The semantics has to be clearly identified so a potential >>> consumer can determine whether s/he understands what message >>> (payload) to send to the service or can engage appropriate >>> mediation for semantic negotiation. >>> >>>> >>>> 2) if the service/service provider shares the ontologies and >>>> semantic with the potential consumer, there is no need for >>>> mediation >>>> >>> >>> Mediation, especially if automated, may still be needed if the >>> semantic negotiation is not trivial. >>> >>>> >>>> 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)? >>>> >>> >>> Hence the need to unambiguously identify your vocabulary/semantic >>> model. >>> >>>> >>>> 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) >>>> >>> >>> As with any conditions of use, this should be clearly specified if >>> required. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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" , >>>> "<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>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" >>>>>> <<mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov >>>>>> > >>>>>> Date: Mon, December 01, 2008 7:00 am >>>>>> To: >>>>>> >>>>>> "<mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>>> " >>>>>> <<mailto: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. >>>>>> >>>>>> CheersS >>>>>> >>>>>> - 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 >>>>>> >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 >>>>>> >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 >>>> >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 >>>> ! >>>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> 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 www.mail.com > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]