[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
Joseph: From the services standpoint - there is no difference. Duane Chiusano Joseph wrote: > 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 <http://www.boozallen.com/> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Frank McCabe [mailto:frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Thu 5/5/2005 12:01 PM > To: Schuldt, Ron L > Cc: Chiusano Joseph; Ken Laskey; Duane Nickull; SOA-RM > Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services? > > 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 *** > > > > > > > -- *********** 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]