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;)
700 13th St. NW, Suite
1100
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:14 PM
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Proposed
SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded
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
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.
*******************************
*******************************
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [For Issue #525] RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Proposed
SOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded
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.
700 13th St. NW, Suite
1100
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:44 PM
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 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.
There are literally 50 different variations on this one simple bit. Now
A owns B and C is owned by B.
Does A even know about C?
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
*******************************
*******************************
-----Original Message-----
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
The *only* thing we might do is define a set of coherent relationships
and use them in our diagrams.
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
700 13th St. NW, Suite
1100
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 1:36 PM
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.
On May 1, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:
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
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
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
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?
700 13th St. NW, Suite
1100
O: 202-508-6514 C: 202-251-0731
-----Original Message-----
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
Names.xls) has been submitted by Mr. Joseph Chiusano to the OASIS SOA
Reference Model TC document repository.
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
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
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
-OASIS Open Administration
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison