OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

[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


Ken,
 
Are there any potential impacts to interoperability between (say) reference implementations of the RM if relationship names are left up to implementers?
 
Also, putting an OWL hat on for a brief moment (with the notion below that considerations for OWL are not part of the RM): If, for example, one were to attempt to perform cross-ontology reasoning across multiple OWL ontologies that are derived from the RM, wouldn't inconsistent relationship labels be an issue? And (back to the RM) couldn't our inclusion of relationship names help such a situation?
 
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
 


From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 11:04 PM
To: Chiusano Joseph
Cc: Duane Nickull; 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

Oh well, this is what I get for being away from email all day.

Duane is absolutely correct if and only if I intend to use the relationships to infer new knowledge.  That is not our intent; indeed as Joe mentions wrt DRM 2.0, the entire intent is one of illustration.  Having unlabeled arcs as they are now says something is related to something and gives no idea to what any of the relationships are.  Looked at in any arbitrary detail, how can I say anything is definitely not related to anything else?  Certainly, there are some relationships implied in the text that are not in the current figures and some relationships in the figures that require rather contorted names because they are not referred to in the text.

The purpose of the figures are to provide some helpful demarcation in text which just starts to run on forever.  The idea was the figures would act as a signpost for the concepts currently under discussion; labeling the arcs consistently with the text provides a shorthand summary.

That is all the figures and the labeling would be meant to do.

I welcome anyone to come up with an OWL or any other ontology.  I would be interested in the result but that is not a part of RM 1.0.

Ken

On May 1, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:

You've convinced me. Thanks.

Joe (who has been to FUDville, and made it back to tell the tale;) 

Kind Regards,
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 4:14 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

Joseph:

It is a valid and well documented fact that first order logic has to be
defined before anything meaningful can be done at a lower level.  That
is why UML is favored from many software professionals - it is not
ambiguous. Every ontologist I know would agree with this basic tenet. If
you and I think your example of "involves-information-characterized-by"
as a label between "interaction" and "information model" is different
that what the other thinks, the entire label is going to through the RM
into FUDville.

Without some kind of formal convention for the labels and notation,
coupled with FOL, it is very realistic that two different people will
read two different things out of the same diagram.  

I favor keeping the drawings sufficiently ambiguous and any specifics of
the relationship should be captured in the text describing the things.
Otherwise, we are on the hook to define the FOL and notational
conventions for the mind maps.

It was a nice thought - let's just let others do this.

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 12:47 PM
To: Duane Nickull; 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

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
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-----
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
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:
documen
t_id=17877

Download Document:
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

---
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]