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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

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


Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?


Joseph:

There are many aspects of context and all things exist within contexts.  
I am not sure we can state a blanket statement like "Context is out of 
scope for our RM" given that context itself is defined by the context of 
its use.

The aspect of a RM that things appear differently based on their context 
of use is an interesting topic and may be relevant to further discussion.

Duane

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

> <Quote>
> but the context for use still defines which relationships are valuable 
> in establishing common meaning.
> </Quote>
>  
> Is context out of scope of our RM?
>  
>
> Joseph Chiusano
>
> Booz Allen Hamilton
>
> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com <http://www.boozallen.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> Sent: Wed 5/4/2005 12:58 PM
> To: Duane Nickull
> Cc: Frank McCabe; 'SOA-RM'
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
>
> Duane,
>
> Yes, an ontology goes far beyond a data dictionary by supporting the 
> formal
> defining of relationships.  This provides a more expressive mechanism for
> capturing elements of description (where I consider relationships an 
> aspect
> of description) but the context for use still defines which relationships
> are valuable in establishing common meaning.
>
> There are a number of upper ontology efforts (SUMO is one but there is 
> also
> BFO, DOLCE, and inevitably others) but there is a question of how an upper
> ontology is best used.  There are some who see it as the basis for 
> ontology
> mapping but while the connection to an upper ontology would undoubtedly
> provide useful information, it is not obvious it would be
> sufficient.  Another perspective is that 2500 years of philosophy has
> debated how things are related and an upper ontology provides a collection
> of the results in a way that facilitates a consistent definition of
> mid-level down to domain ontologies.  But there are still multiple
> ontological perspectives to be resolved.  Chapter 2 of
> http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/deliverables/documents/D18.pdf does a 
> nice
> job of describing some of the choices.
>
> The details of all this goes beyond the SOA RM, making it our challenge to
> figure out what level of explanation needs to be in the our final 
> documents.
>
> Ken
>
> At 12:37 PM 5/4/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
> >Ken:
> >
> >Could I infer from this that an ontology goes further than a mere data
> >dictionary in that it not only defines the terms but also captures the
> >associations between them.  Certain ontologies like SUMO have done a
> >wonderful job IMO defining the first order logic and primitives that are
> >used to classify associations.
> >
> >Duane
> >
> >Ken Laskey wrote:
> >
> >>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.   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
> >>
> >
> >--
> >***********
> >Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
> >Chair - OASIS Service Oriented Architecture Reference Model Technical
> >Committee - 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=soa-rm
> >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                                              /
>      
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *** note: phone number changed 4/15/2005 to 703-983-7934 ***
>
>
>

-- 
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Chair - OASIS Service Oriented Architecture Reference Model Technical Committee - 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=soa-rm
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources  - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
***********



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