[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Proposed SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded
Duane, With all due respect, I think you're over-analyzing this possibility. We had no problem doing this in the DRM, so I don't see why it should be different here (and Mike Daconta led that initiative from the technical standpoint). However, I yield to yours and the TC's consensus. Joe Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz Allen Hamilton 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:44 PM To: Chiusano Joseph; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Proposed SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded It is *not* that simple. Imagine you draw a line from A to B and label it "owns". What does that mean? A owns B A owns B and B is owned by A For all that is true in the statement A owns B, the inverse is equally true A owns B and B is not even aware that A exists A owns B and B is aware that A exists but does not reciprocate to the statement. A owns B as expressed by entity X and neither A nor B are aware of the label A owns B as visible from A but not from B A owns B as visible from A and B A owns B and B is aware of A but does not have any specific label on the relationship. Etc... There are literally 50 different variations on this one simple bit. Now throw in C. A owns B and C is owned by B. Does A even know about C? Etc... Sorry - this is not something we can define given the abstract nature of our RM without committing first order logic to the spec to define what it means. Duane ******************************* Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/ Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/ ******************************* -----Original Message----- From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 10:40 AM To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Proposed SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded <Quote> The *only* thing we might do is define a set of coherent relationships and use them in our diagrams. </Quote> Yes, that is what I recommend. It may have been poorly worded, but the intent of the issue (as I discussed it with the submitter) was to simply provide clear, understandable relationship names - not ones specific to OWL. Joe Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz Allen Hamilton 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com -----Original Message----- From: Frank McCabe [mailto:frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 1:36 PM To: Rex Brooks Cc: Chiusano Joseph; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Proposed SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded I do not think that we should go anywhere near this. We did not charter ourselves to do an OWL ontology. The *only* thing we might do is define a set of coherent relationships and use them in our diagrams. Frank On May 1, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Rex Brooks wrote: > Yup, > > If we are going to provide relationship names to accommodate OWL, we > need to be specific about which version of OWL we want to support or > CAN support, given the abstract nature of the Reference Model. > > I would be happy with OWL DL, less happy with OWL Lite, and opposed to > OWL Full. Going into the reasons is something we should take up in the > f2f, because it is too lengthy for an email. However, I would prefer > to put this on hold for a v2.0 which I suspect is almost unavoidable, > though one hoped it would not be given sufficient abstraction. > > That said, I would select relationship names directly from the realm > of RDF in general and RDF Schema in particular and, for me, OWL DL and > not make up any new ones and I would start with extremely basic, very > abstract, relationships and not use any terms that are open to > interpretation. In other words, I would try to start with compliance > with first-order logic. Going beyond basic classes and properties to > subClassOf and subPropertyOf is about as far as I would go. Otherwise > we open the door to a purely endless exercise in futility. It would > take a lot of work and I don't think we have time for it in this > version. > > This is probably not a good idea. > > I would prefer to see it be a separate specification, with its own set > of requirements starting with mereology from general to specific, > where you define things in the isPartOf relationship not the > consistsOf relationship. The difference is that there are some > accepted rules for mereology, and it works with formal logic. If we > are going to accommodate OWL now we need to make sure we are not > setting ourselves up for a bunch of logical contradictions by going > full steam ahead before looking at the landscape and figuring out what > kind of roadmap we need. > > I think the spreadsheet is a good way to get concepts out where you > can look at them and pick away at them. I just don't think this is > likely to get well baked enough to include in this round, and perhaps > ought to be its own specification, a SOA ontology based on the RM. > That would give us plenty of time to noodle and boil this down to > workability. > > Regards, > Rex > > > > At 11:05 AM -0400 5/1/06, Chiusano Joseph wrote: >> I've updated the subject for this thread to reflect the Issue #. Any >> thoughts on the proposed relationship names? >> >> Joe >> >> Joseph Chiusano >> Associate >> Booz Allen Hamilton >> >> 700 13th St. NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20005 >> O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731 >> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: chiusano_joseph@bah.com [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:52 PM >> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [soa-rm] Groups - Proposed SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM >> Relationships Names.xls) uploaded >> >> The document named Proposed SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM >> Relationships >> Names.xls) has been submitted by Mr. Joseph Chiusano to the OASIS SOA >> Reference Model TC document repository. >> >> Document Description: >> This is related to issue #525, which described "the potential >> creation of an OWL ontology for SOA-RM to be considered as an upper >> ontology for different architectures guided by SOA-RM, in order to >> provide semantic interoperability between these architectures and >> their implementations (instances), once they are SOA-RM based.". The >> submitter expressed how the lack of relationship names in our spec >> inhibited this. >> >> I have worked with the submitter and Ken Laskey to create this >> spreadsheet of proposed relationship names for all figures that >> contain directed relationships. Please review and comment; you may >> wish to use the spreadsheet row # when referring to specific >> relationships. We have provided 2 sets of proposed names for each >> relationship (except the final >> one) - one primary, and one alternate. >> >> Please also keep in mind that some of the proposed relationship names >> may bring with them minor alterations in the relationships >> themselves. >> >> Thanks, >> Joe >> >> View Document Details: >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/document.php? >> documen >> t_id=17877 >> >> Download Document: >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/download.php/ >> 17877/S >> OA-RM%20Relationships%20Names.xls >> >> >> PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email >> application may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be >> able to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field >> of your web browser. >> >> -OASIS Open Administration > > > -- > 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]