[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
I haven't had chance to read through all the postings on this but my gut feeling is: keep the relationship names off. The volume of traffic on this one issue seems to reflect that there could be a problem, and a whole new review. I would support the idea also of removing the arrows, although we did say - in the very early discussions on this - that the diagrams are supposed to be descriptive not prescriptive. Therefore, any attempt to add "semantics" to the relationships is going to induce people into assuming (probably rightly) that the labels are significant. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Sent: 02 May 2006 20:07 To: Duane Nickull 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 Duane, I suggest we look at say Figure 4, come up with a labeled version of it, and then decide whether it improves understanding and readability of the text. Joe's spreadsheet assumed the arrow directions as they currently exist and we already know these are inconsistent. Frank at one point suggested getting rid of the arrows completely. Does that remove ambiguity or add more? Do labels just add clutter? Let's look at the alternatives. I'll volunteer to help on this but I may not be able to get to it in the next few days. Ken On May 2, 2006, at 1:15 PM, Duane Nickull wrote: Ken: In general, I do not consider the relationships unlabelled. We actually have surrounding text which specifies the nature of the relationships. The simple labels are far too ambiguous IMO without further qualification. Duane ******************************* Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com <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/ <http://technoracle.blogspot.com/> ******************************* ________________________________ From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 8:04 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 <http://www.boozallen.com> -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com <mailto:dnickull@adobe.com> ] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:14 PM To: Chiusano Joseph; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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 <http://www.adobe.com> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org <http://www.uncefact.org> / Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com <http://technoracle.blogspot.com> / ******************************* -----Original Message----- From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com <mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com> ] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 12:47 PM To: Duane Nickull; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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 <http://www.boozallen.com> -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com <mailto:dnickull@adobe.com> ] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:44 PM To: Chiusano Joseph; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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 <http://www.adobe.com> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org <http://www.uncefact.org> / Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com <http://technoracle.blogspot.com> / ******************************* -----Original Message----- From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com <mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com> ] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 10:40 AM To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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 <http://www.boozallen.com> -----Original Message----- From: Frank McCabe [mailto:frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com <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 <mailto: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 <http://www.boozallen.com> -----Original Message----- From: chiusano_joseph@bah.com [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com <mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com> ] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:52 PM To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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? <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/ <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 --- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]