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 - ProposedSOA-RM Relationship Names (SOA-RM Relationships Names.xls) uploaded


I'd vote to leave them out, but I think we should 
give serious thought to forming a subcommittee or 
chartering a spin-off TC to build a formal SOA 
ontology based on the RM and RA, rather than 
accommodating what would almost certainly be a 
poorly done and damaging informal ontology effort 
built upon necessarily ambiguous terms for 
relationships that will almost certainly require 
interpretation.

Those interpretations would also almost certainly 
be immediately converted into computational 
systems ungoverned by the need for formal logical 
consistency beyond individual applications no 
matter how much we emphasize that our efforts in 
this are non-normative. The market out there is 
just too hungry and anxious to carpe the diem, 
hence my suggestion.

There has been and is an ongoing effort to 
improve the practice of building ontologies and 
the recent Upper Ontology Summit Joint Communique
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit/UosJointCommunique

shows that the major upper ontology custodians 
have, in essence, signed on to an effort to make 
their work more complementary even with 
acknowledged diffferences:

I am quoting the 8th of 10 points in the Communiqué:

[8] To promote interoperability and the 
exploitation of these upper ontologies, we intend 
to find a principled means of articulating the 
relationships (including differences) among them. 
As a result, this initiative will significantly 
enhance the value of the knowledge in each of the 
communities whose knowledge bases are linked to 
these interrelated upper ontologies.

I am also almost sure we can recruit a few major 
players in upper ontology efforts most closely 
related to SOA to work with us. It would probably 
also be a good idea to recruit someone from the 
W3C Semantic Web Rules Language (SWRL) effort to 
join us as well.

Regards,
Rex

At 1:25 PM +0200 5/3/06, Peter F Brown wrote:
>Even if they are non-normative, they will be understood as representing
>something. My concern is that if there is no consensus on the actual names
>of the relationships, then we had better leave them out completely. As Duane
>points out, even if the lines are not labelled in the figure, the nature of
>the relationships is elucidated in the surrounding text.
>
>I'd still thus vote for leaving out any labels on the relationship lines.
>
>Peter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
>Sent: 03 May 2006 12:29
>To: peter@justbrown.net; Ken Laskey; Duane Nickull
>Cc: 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
>
>What if we were to include relationship names but state that they are
>non-normative?
>
>Joe
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@justbrown.net]
>Sent: Wed 5/3/2006 3:10 AM
>To: 'Ken Laskey'; '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
>
>
>
>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


--
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]