[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:07 PM
> To: Frank McCabe
> Cc: 'SOA-RM'
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
>
> I've struggled for a long time on what it means to capture
> semantics, for example why is an OWL ontology better than a
> data dictionary. My conclusion (so far) is that conveying
> semantics (or just pedestrian
> meaning) is describing enough about a thing (physical or
> conceptual) that one builds a common picture with someone
> else. Conveying semantics depends on having some degree of a
> common framework and then
> describing the new entity in terms of/as extensions to that
> framework.
It's actually much more than that, I believe. The true "semantics test",
IMO, is: is the information described in a rich-enough manner so that it
can be:
(a) Processed by machines (which does not yet get to semantic
technologies, XML handles this aspect);
(b) Interpreted properly according to its truly intended rich meaning
(this is where the semantic technologies kick in);
(c) Reasoned upon (by cognitive agents and inference engines) to the
point where inferences can be drawn from the representation that are as
accurate as a human would infer (we are not completely to this point
yet);
And there are more I am sure. Data dictionaries stop short of (b) and
(c).
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> You add more bits of information until the two have a
> sufficiently common picture for the task at hand. A simpler
> task may be satisfied by a smaller, simpler set of
> descriptive elements while something requiring more precision
> will require more detail. The language used to capture the
> description has to be sufficiently expressive to capture the
> information that discriminates entities or shows their commonality.
> OWL does a great job on things that can be described in
> terms of sets while its current form does nothing to express
> uncertainty. "Storing"
> semantics is then storing these descriptive elements in a
> usable, retrievable fashion.
>
> Not sure that is a sufficient explanation (i.e. that I have
> been able to create a sufficiently common picture) but it's
> all I've got now.
>
> Ken
>
> On May 2, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Frank McCabe wrote:
>
> > +1
> > In fact, I am hard put to understand how you can *store* semantics.
> > You can only store data. The best that you can do is store a
> > description of the semantics; but that is not the same thing.
> >
> > On that theme, IBM and others at the U of Georgia recently
> released a
> > paper on semantic annotations of Web services. Have not yet had the
> > time to digest this properly, but could be interesting...
> if IBM makes
> > a play in the standards space with this.
> >
> > The link to the paper is:
> >
> > http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/g/g.nsf/img/semanticsdocs/$file/
> > wssemantic_annotation.pdf
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > On May 2, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Duane Nickull wrote:
> >
> >> John
> >> (aka "Meggan". Hey - how you dress in private is none of our
> >> business ;-)
> >>
> >> Just joking!!
> >>
> >> This is a good question.
> >>
> >> The registry is one way that one could store semantics however
> >> semantics are not required to be explicit and there are
> other models
> >> for sharing information beside registry. At the abstract level it
> >> represents a facet of the model where the information available is
> >> meaningful. Therefore, a registry will not be in the
> reference model
> >> as a normative, core element.
> >>
> >> We decided to add a non normative section to explain some of these
> >> manifestations. How one goes from "Data Model" to Messages,
> >> Availability to Registry, Policy to on the wire security etc.
> >>
> >> It would be great if you could hook up with the person with this
> >> section and offer proof reading services. Value your input.
> >>
> >> Duane
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> meggan hardin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> My assumptions (so far) about the central metadata concepts have
> >>> been that the reg/rep holds this data. Are we delving to
> the level
> >>> of defining specific types of resources / components that
> should be
> >>> included in a major component such as the reg/rep? I
> think that the
> >>> concept of storing semantic metadata as an independent
> integration
> >>> reference point is important enough to be included in the RM.
> >>>
> >>> FWIW - Contivo terms the semantic metadata repository the
> >>> "enterprise vocabulary"...
> >>>
> >>> john
> >>>
> >>> Smith, Martin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Violent agreement.
> >>>> martin
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Schuldt, Ron L [mailto:ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com]
> >>>> Sent: Fri 4/29/2005 6:39 PM
> >>>> To: Smith, Martin; Sharma, Sameer; Duane Nickull;
> >>>> john@crossconnections.ws
> >>>> Cc: ebSOA OASIS TC; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sameer will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that
> his intent
> >>>> was to include the notion of central metadata within a
> "Reference
> >>>> Architecture" not the Reference Model. Appendix B is the place
> >>>> where example use cases would be defined. I suspect that Sameer
> >>>> might be willing to submit an example use case.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron Schuldt
> >>>> Senior Staff Systems Architect
> >>>> Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
> >>>> 11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
> >>>> #F521 Mail Point DC5694
> >>>> Littleton, CO 80127
> >>>> 303-977-1414
> >>>> ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Smith, Martin [mailto:Martin.Smith@DHS.GOV]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:19 PM
> >>>> To: Sharma, Sameer; Duane Nickull; john@crossconnections.ws
> >>>> Cc: ebSOA OASIS TC; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sameer - -
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me practice being Matt <g>:
> >>>>
> >>>> The term " 'central' metadata" presumes a specific
> implementation
> >>>> strategy and should not be in the RM. Perhaps "metadata
> associated
> >>>> with the service should be available in the
> environment." Now in
> >>>> my example SOA for Appendix B, I'll probably show a UDDI
> services
> >>>> directory, or maybe a combo registry/repository that can in fact
> >>>> store all the description metadata.
> >>>>
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Sharma, Sameer [mailto:sameer.sharma@lmco.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 2:16 PM
> >>>> To: Smith, Martin; Duane Nickull; john@crossconnections.ws
> >>>> Cc: ebSOA OASIS TC; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> My feeling is that some of what you are alluding to might be
> >>>> covered by UDDI, however as is happening in an instance of SOA
> >>>> deployment that I am involved in - UDDI by itself is not
> going to
> >>>> be sufficient to express all the metadata that is needed for a
> >>>> client to successfully and contextually interpret all that a Web
> >>>> Service does.
> >>>>
> >>>> My attempted solution is to capture this additional metadata by
> >>>> leveraging central metadata services of my enterprise. I
> guess what
> >>>> I am saying is that the concept of "central metadata" might be a
> >>>> valid candidate as a component of the Reference
> Architecture we are
> >>>> considering.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since I was unable to participate in the F2F, (due to some last
> >>>> minute commitments that I got called into), if this topic was
> >>>> discussed, please accept my apologies for bringing it up again.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> L
> >>>> Sameer Sharma
> >>>> Principal Applications Architect
> >>>> Lockheed Martin Corporation
> >>>> Chief Technology Office (CTO)
> >>>> 12506 Lake Underhill Road - MP 166
> >>>> Orlando, FL-32825
> >>>> Tel: (407) 306 5640
> >>>> Fax:(407) 306 1392
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Smith, Martin [mailto:Martin.Smith@DHS.GOV]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 1:38 PM
> >>>> To: Duane Nickull; john@crossconnections.ws
> >>>> Cc: ebSOA OASIS TC; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
> >>>>
> >>>> Folks - -
> >>>>
> >>>> On my way home from N'awlins Wed night, I had a thought on this
> >>>> discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we expect services in an SOA to be independent
> of the kind
> >>>> of shared contextual knowledge we usually presume within a local
> >>>> computing environment. We expect that the requesting
> service will
> >>>> be able to obtain all the info it needs to use the responding
> >>>> service successfully by processing the responding service's
> >>>> description metadata. I do think this is a core
> characteristic of
> >>>> SOA services.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not suggesting we reinstate the use of the word
> "autonomous" as
> >>>> a handle for this concept since it demonstrably caused
> confusion at
> >>>> the f2f. If we need a handle, perhaps "self-sufficient" or
> >>>> "self-documenting" or "introspective" (naaah - forget that one.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 12:43 PM
> >>>> To: john@crossconnections.ws
> >>>> Cc: ebSOA OASIS TC; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>>> Subject: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
> >>>>
> >>>> We discussed and the submitter withdrew the submission pending
> >>>> clarification on exactly what is meant by Autonomous nature WRT
> >>>> services. It may be re-submitted and probably will
> however we do
> >>>> not have consensus on it at present.
> >>>>
> >>>> Duane
> >>>>
> >>>> john c hardin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Duane and SOA-RM group -
> >>>>> Can someone enlighten the members of the eb-soa group
> regarding a
> >>>>> description of Autonomous Services? Any resulting conversations
> >>>>> from the meetings this week, on the subject of
> Autonomous Services
> >>>>> would be
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> good also.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks
> >>>>> john
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> ***********
> >>>> Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. -
> >>>> http://www.adobe.com Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary -
> >>>> http://www.unece.org/cefact/ Adobe Enterprise Developer
> Resources
> >>>> - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
> >>>> ***********
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ***********
> >> Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. -
> >> http://www.adobe.com
> >> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary -
> http://www.unece.org/cefact/
> >> Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources -
> >> http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
> >> ***********
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ------------------
> 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]