What if we were to include relationship
names but state that they are non-normative?
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