[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
Consider a service that is invoked as part of an overarching process that is used to verify a person's arrest record as part of a routine traffic stop. Contrast that context with the same service invoked as part of an overarching process to create a statistical report for a given geographic region - same service, but different processes.
Different contexts.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
Perhaps you give give me a paragraph outlining what you think of
as
being context.
Frank
On May 4, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Schuldt,
Ron L wrote:
> IMO, the concept of "context" is essential for
semantics and
> probably needs some form of explanation within the
semantics
> section of the RM.
>
> Ron
>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 11:17 AM
> To: Ken Laskey; Duane
Nickull
> Cc: Frank McCabe; SOA-RM
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re:
Autonomous Services?
>
> <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
>
>
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 ***
>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]