[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [no subject]
Ron Schuldt Senior Staff Systems Architect Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems P.O. Box 179 Mail Stop DC5694 Denver, CO 80201-0179 303-977-1414 ron.l.schuldt@lmco.com -----Original Message----- From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 10:02 AM To: Frank McCabe; Ken Laskey Cc: Duane Nickull; Matt MacKenzie; chiusano_joseph@bah.com; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org; danny_thornton2@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [soa-rm] RE: Resolving Various Policy Languages with Ontologies That's an EXCELLENT idea! Rex At 8:13 AM -0700 10/12/05, Frank McCabe wrote: >Hey, why not have a semantic mapping TC :-) > >On Oct 11, 2005, at 7:57 PM, Ken Laskey wrote: > >>One thing I have advocated in work outside SOA-RM (yes, Virginia, >>there is another life) is the need to understand what are the >>concepts that go into a mapping, what are the properties of a >>mapping, and (dare I say) what does an ontology that represents >>mapping look like. That very much gets into how one could possibly >>do effective mediation. But that is a whole separate topic. >> >>Ken >> >>P.S. No, I do not propose we create a Semantic Mapping TC. >> >> >>On Oct 11, 2005, at 7:36 PM, Duane Nickull wrote: >> >>>This was the base theorem for the Core Components Technical >>>Specification (CCTS) which mandates a set of contexts as a >>>qualifier for every semantic entity. Even the simplest of data >>>elements (FirstNameOfPerson) has different semantics if it appears >>>in a PO as //BuyerParty/Contact/FirstNameOfPerson vs. >>>//SellerParty/Contact/FirstNameOfPerson. Makes it hard to create >>>one size fits all mapping rules. >>> >>> >>> >>>This is also why I drew the sinkhole with us staring down at semantics ;-) >>> >>> >>> >>>Duane >>> >>> >>> >>>From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] >>>Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:03 PM >>>To: Matt MacKenzie >>>Cc: chiusano_joseph@bah.com; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org; >>>danny_thornton2@yahoo.com >>>Subject: Re: [soa-rm] RE: Resolving Various Policy Languages with Ontologies >>> >>> >>> >>>Mappings cannot always be complete because, as Frank notes, an >>>ontology exists for a purpose (or variations of a similar purpose) >>>and does not express all possible knowledge on a subject. This >>>does not mean there isn't value in a partial mapping or mappings >>>among a collection of ontologies. Ideally, if there was >>>information missing to which one needed to map, this information >>>and corresponding mappings could be formally captured and expand >>>the knowledge base for future uses. >>> >>> >>> >>>Ken >>> >>> >>> >>>On Oct 11, 2005, at 1:24 PM, Matt MacKenzie wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>I have adapted a proprietary access control language to xacml, and >>>merely mapping concepts was not enough. It was useful, but didn't >>>fill in all the blanks. >>> >>> >>> >>>-matt >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Matt MacKenzie >>> >>>Development Manager, LiveCycle Registry >>> >>>Adobe Systems Incorporated >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>> >>>From: Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> >>> >>>To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org>; >>>Danny Thornton <danny_thornton2@yahoo.com> >>> >>>Sent: Tue Oct 11 13:10:51 2005 >>> >>>Subject: RE: [soa-rm] RE: Resolving Various Policy Languages with Ontologies >>> >>> >>> >>><Quote> >>> >>>For example, if I have a service that uses XACML policy and another >>> >>>service that uses EPAL policy, I could resolve the differences between >>> >>>the two policy languages using an ontology for both policy languages at >>> >>>the policy decision point. >>> >>></Quote> >>> >>> >>> >>>I believe this has already been stated on some form or another by others >>> >>>who have replied, but this looks to me like the job for a "security >>> >>>policy reference model" (or similar name) that contains those (minimal) >>> >>>concepts that are most central to the domain, rather than an ontology. I >>> >>>see an ontology as a semantic model that may be derived using the >>> >>>reference model, along with multiple other representations such as >>> >>>concrete security architectures, UML class diagrams, E-R diagrams, etc. >>> >>>One single reference model begets all of these and more. >>> >>> >>> >>>Joe (living in reference model world these days) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Joseph Chiusano >>> >>>Booz Allen Hamilton >>> >>> >>> >>>700 13th St. NW >>> >>>Washington, DC 20005 >>> >>>O: 202-508-6514 <= new office number as of 09/19/05 >>> >>>C: 202-251-0731 >>> >>>Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>> >>>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] >>> >>>Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:50 AM >>> >>>To: Danny Thornton >>> >>>Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >>> >>>Subject: [soa-rm] RE: Resolving Various Policy Languages with >>> >>>Ontologies >>> >>> >>> >>>Post from Danny Thornton: >>> >>> >>> >>>(he mentions the "O" and "S" words) >>> >>> >>> >>>;-) >>> >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>> >>>From: Danny Thornton [mailto:danny_thornton2@yahoo.com] >>> >>>Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:26 PM >>> >>>To: Duane Nickull >>> >>>Subject: Resolving Various Policy Languages with Ontologies >>> >>> >>> >>>Hi Duane, >>> >>> >>> >>>The following is an e-mail dicussion I would like to have >>> >>>with soa-rm group: >>> >>> >>> >>>I have been reading WD-SOA-RM-09 to get an idea of the >>> >>>terminology/concepts for resolving various policy languages >>> >>>in a service oriented architecture. Section >>> >>>2.2.3.2 of WD-SOA-RM-09 discusses the limits of description. >>> >>>Section 2.3.1.2 states that an ontology can be defined to >>> >>>interpret strings and other tokens in the data. >>> >>> >>> >>>In the discussions I've had about resolving various policy >>> >>>languages in an SOA, I've hijacked the ontology concept and >>> >>>applied it as a general concept for resolving differences in >>> >>>policy languages. >>> >>> >>> >>>For example, if I have a service that uses XACML policy and >>> >>>another service that uses EPAL policy, I could resolve the >>> >>>differences between the two policy languages using an >>> >>>ontology for both policy languages at the policy decision point. >>> >>> >>> >>>For section 2.3.1.2 of the WD-SOA-RM-09, does anyone have any >>> >>>thoughts on expanding the concept of ontologies beyond the >>> >>>service description's data model? >>> >>> >>> >>>Danny >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>__________________________________ >>> >>>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>--- >>> >>>Ken Laskey >>> >>>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >>> >>>7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >>> >>>McLean VA 22102-7508 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>--- >>Ken Laskey >>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >>7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >>McLean VA 22102-7508 -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-849-2309
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]