[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
Ron, Great start on a complex idea! Kathryn Breininger Boeing Library Services 425-965-0182 phone -----Original Message----- From: Schuldt, Ron L [mailto:ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 12:11 PM To: Frank McCabe Cc: Chiusano Joseph; Ken Laskey; Duane Nickull; SOA-RM Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services? Frank, Here is a two sentence start -- Within an SOA-RM, context provides essential metadata surrounding a discourse that helps to establish correct interpretation between the principals involved in that discourse. Since words and symbols used in a particular discourse may have multiple possible interpretations, the context metadata provides a basis for selecting the correct interpretations of the words and symbols. Ron -----Original Message----- From: Frank McCabe [mailto:frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 10:01 AM 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 *** > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]