Understood, Michael,
Cheers,
Rex
On 2/1/11 1:13 AM, mpoulin@usa.com wrote:
8CD900770AD3E86-163C-B089@web-mmc-m06.sysops.aol.com"
type="cite">Rex,
as you can see, I do not have Actor of my list
of "over-defined" terms.
I have mentioned Actor as a part of two
definition loops but it does not mean that the definition of
Actor is incorrect; it is possible that other definitions
might require re-wording OR we are fine with all of them!
I'd like the Group to decide (the concern is this: if I
could find the loop, others will do it (see Murphy's Laws),
i.e. we have to know what to say in such cases)
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks <rex.brooks@ncoic.org>
To: mpoulin@usa.com
Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Tue, Feb 1, 2011 1:06 am
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Finalised definitions list and
comparison table
The Ontology Summit is just a curious coincidence, and
that particular audience is not one of the constituencies
I was referring to, which would be the DoDAF Metamodel
group and the NCOIC Services WG and other Emergency
Management oriented groups. I'll have to give Actor
another look, though unless there's an overriding purpose
I will stay with 7/28/10 version until convinced
otherwise. Since I wasn't having the problem with it that
others have expressed, I would really like to hear an
exceptional overriding purpose or concern. I understand
that the group judgement rules. I'm just saying what I
think, but I will look at it again when/if I can between
now and Wednesday's meeting.
Cheers,
Rex
On 1/31/11 10:44 AM, mpoulin@usa.com wrote:
@ Peter
for the point 1 - I do exactly as
you said in my diagrams; there is not problem at all
With regard to point 2, I'd prefer
to deal with the composite definition as the whole
one, without splitting them into separate words; for
example: if the definition of 'Peer Social Structure' does
not refer to 'Peer' , I would ignore all
relationships with the term 'peer' despite its
presence in the name. IN other words, if I do a
search against this term, I ignore all cases where
words, peer, social, and structure appear
separately.
@Rex
I hope that TC addresses the
question: should we define all words we use or
English is till valid language for expressing our
ideas? :-) I can imagine how sticky the Ontology Summit might be but we
are writing to not-necessary-ontology-people. If
we start define things like 'fact', 'evidence',
or 'listener', we risk creating the situation that
nobody would talk to us or read the RAF because
people loose the confidence in every word they
read. In several cases, we re-define terms that
have nothing to do with service orientation or
architecture. This is what I am afraid of and
talking about.
I
have attached an example of the diagram I am
drawing where you can see that one basis term is
defined while another term references to the first
one.
-
Michael
P.S.
In the diagram you can see the basis definitions
(as immediate children of the
element<<Defined the same in both>>:
Actor, Participant and Delegate. While I assume
there should be some dependencies between these
terms, I have not expected two loops of
definitions: Actor-Delegate-Actor (marked by red
arrows) and Actor-Participant-Actor (marked
by orange arrows). Well, at the end of the day,
the purpose of this diagram is exactly this - find
discrepancies in the definitions. BTW, you can see
elements in the basis definition marked with the
version dates and explicit texts of these definitions (sorry, in the given picture these texts
are not really readable)
If you want to see the diagram I am drawing, you
can use any XML Schema visualisation tool, like
Altova's XMLSPY and ask me to send you the
Schema's text.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Rex Brooks <rex.brooks@ncoic.org>
To: peter@peterfbrown.com
Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 5:03 pm
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Finalised definitions
list and comparison table
For clarity, value is often in the eye of the
beholder, and we need to keep in mind that the
one thing that I have heard from the
constituencies I work with is that they like
having definitions because it keeps them
grounded. As fates would have it, I'm
co-champion of the Values and Metrics Track of
this year's Ontology Summit. Very sticky
wicket!
Cheers,
Rex
On 1/31/11 7:29 AM, Peter F Brown wrote:
Hi Michael:
1
– I was asked to
indicate, for each concept that we
define (= term) whether other concepts
are used in that definition. For
example, the definition of
‘capability’
(whichever one you choose) uses the
term
‘RWE’.
The objective was to indicate simply
dependencies between concepts defined,
no more.
2
– I
couldn’t agree more
but they are listed as per the
TC’s request. This
needs to be addressed by the editors
of the sections concerned.
3
– I agree but others
don’t
– it is an issue the
TC needs to address –
Chris and I cut back radically on the
number of formally defined concepts
precisely for the reasons you invoke.
We need to distinguish those concepts
that have a particular meaning and
value for our work: I would suggest
they must meet both criteria
(particular meaning AND value) to be
considered for inclusion as a formal
definition.
Regards,
Peter
Hi
Peter,
1) I've
found only the columns where you
specify the line number that refers
to the definition in different
versions and its occurrences
in different places of the
document but not "A new
column in those sheets with
definitions, that indicates the other
concepts referred to in the
term definition" - it is
not obvious that the referred lines
belong to other concepts. I would
prefer, if you do not mind, having
references directly to other
definitions in addition to other
points in the text
2) I've
found it is really difficult to deal
with composite terms like 'Peer
Social Structure' because there are
too many potential dependencies
separately for 'peer' and 'social
structure' that may belong to
totally different contexts. For
example, reference to the line 2717
leads to 'peer' but 'social
structure' is not even mentioned
3) in
general, I find our extended
vocabulary a bit artificial and
difficult to operate with: we use
relatively common words of plain
English in the diagrams and text
AND re-define them in our special
definitions. Since the words are
common, the reader may not suspect
that there is special
ontology/semantic is meant in our
vocabulary. I am afraid, it is
overcomplicated. Here is one of
many examples:
our term
Listener is commonly understood as
something that listens; one
can comprehend this 'something' as
a noun - an actor, an object, an
entity, a participant,
a stakeholder, a system, a human
that listens - it is simple and
easy; instead, our definition
says: "A listener is an actor [OK!]
who performs actions [wait
a minute, this starts the mixture
of concerns!] needed to
acquire [where this comes
from?] a communication
[why is this about a
communication only? If an actor
listens to acquire not a
communication but something
else, e.g. RWE, it is not a
Listener any more, is it?..]"
For given
example, I would not define term
Listener at all, it is clearly
understood w/o our definition.
Chris
and I have finished a new
version of the definitions
table, as requested.
The
attached version includes:
- A
new sheet indicating where
terms are used in Figures
– we have
“onlyâ€ÂÂ
(yes, there are more than
150 of them…)
included those terms that
have not already been listed
having a formal definition
– we
indicate the first
occurrence of the term in a
diagram as well as (where it
is defined) the line number
of the definition in the 17
Jan draft
- A
new column in those sheets
with definitions, that
indicates the other concepts
referred to in the term
definition
- The
‘unused’
list is now only terms that
are really not used at all,
anywhere, in the text
but may still appear on a
diagram
We
have not yet included the
revised understanding of the
concepts of state, shared
state, shareable state,
joint action, interaction,
RWE, execution context
– as well
as our further understanding
of the relationship of those
concepts to the SOA
ecosystem –
I will write up my notes
from the offline discussions
and circulate those later
Thursday.
Transforming
our Relationships with
Information Technologies
Blog
pensivepeter.wordpress.com
P.O.
Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA
90049, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|