[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] OASIS' Ref Ontology for SOA
Folks, I have uploaded a Word doc titled "SOA RA - comments on Semantics". It includes several comments that I tried to embed into the RA text in different places (identified by the section titles and line numbers). Also, I put several aside notes about different subjects that I consider very important for the overall document and would like to ask for you appropriate attention to them. Kind regards, - Michael Poulin Document is available at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm-ra/members/upload.php > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org> > To: "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: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:40:08 -0500 > > > 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 > << smime.p7s >> > -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]