This thread just started on the SOA Reference Model TC list. Any comments? (01)
Duane (02)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Semantics (was: Re: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous
Services?)
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 13:26:49 -0700
From: Francis McCabe <fgm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: soa-rm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References:
<955953BEFC7F5C4AA0F1428F3F335F1CE327B8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<4274B7B4.4080208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <427655BD.4050704@xxxxxxxxx>
<7FD249D5-A9A6-477A-98B6-D091BA15006E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<42766875.60606@xxxxxxxxx> (03)
Ahh, well, you begin to point at something deep here... about the
relationship between syntax and semantics. (04)
One definition of semantics is in terms of the objects/concepts of
interest and their relationships. I.e., to model the semantics of
some *thing* identify the objects of interest and then their
relationships. (05)
Syntax, on the other hand, is all about written expression; and the
manipulation thereof. (06)
The problem that most logicians skirt over is this: in order to
describe the semantics of some *thing*; you have to write it down --
i.e., you need syntax to do semantics. Something of a paradox. (07)
I have come to the conclusion that the relationship (sic) between
syntax and semantics (proof theory and model theory), is primarily
one of perspective: semantics is *about* relationships, and syntax is
*about* structure. (08)
Which is a long-winded way of saying that, yes, you can do a lot with
syntax manipulation. However, where simple-minded syntax manipulation
breaks down is in the broader context: I can re-write one form of a
telephone number to another because I (i.e., not part of any spec.)
happen to know they are equivalent for my purposes. (09)
The other big issue with purely syntactic operations is that there is
no support for distinguishing valid transformations from invalid
ones. Often to prove a syntactic transformation is valid (sanctioned
by the semantics) is non-trivial. What a sound logic gives you is a
once-and-for-all proof that certain transformations are valid. (010)
Frank (011)
On May 2, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Duane Nickull wrote: (012)
> Frank:
>
> I just skimmed this work and find it very interesting. There are a
> couple of sections we may wish to ponder in our context.
>
> Section 1.1 - definitions. Clean separation of the Semantic Model
> (probably what also may be termed ontology) from the concept of
> semantics itself. There is also another separation of semantics
> annotation (where something like UDEF would be categorized) from
> the notion itself.
>
> Section 1.2 - a great depiction of how semantics relate to Data Model.
>
> page 15-16 - I do not see how this XSL instance to OWL mapping:
>
> <xsl:template match="/">
> <Address rdf:ID="Address1">
> <has_Receiver rdf:datatype="xs:string">
> <xsl:value-of select="POAddress/recepientInstName"/>
> <has_StreetAddress rdf:datatype="xs:string">
> <xsl:value-of select="concat(POAddress/streetAddr1,POAddress/
> streetAddr2)"/>
> </has_StreetAddress >
> <has_City rdf:datatype="xs:string">
> <xsl:value-of select="POAddress/city"/>
> </has_City>
> <has_State rdf:datatype="xs:string">
> <xsl:value-of select="POAddress/state"/>
> </has_State>
> <has_ZipCode rdf:datatype="xs:string">
> <xsl:value-of select="POAddress/zipCode"/>
> </has_ZipCode>
> <has_Country rdf:datatype="xs:string">
> <xsl:value-of select="POAddress/country"/>
> </has_Country>
> </Address>
> </xsl:template>
>
> varies from what a schema can tell you. The basic premise of
> containership structure allows the same declarations IMO.
>
> I did like the aspect of context specific semantic reference
> however. The aspect of context is missing from many semantics
> works. An example - you define something called "party". Seems
> easy - a party is an entity assuming a role within an exchange (or
> something similar to that). The gotcha is in the implementation.
> The semantics of "Party" varies from itself within different
> hierarchic manifestations.
>
> //PO/Buyer/Party != //PO/Seller/Party
>
> This is potentially a bad example since it could be solved with
> ambiguous references but the main notion is that every element has
> at least one context qualified. Luckily, we do not have to address
> a solution for this but I hope these folks can. It looks like
> their xpath statement to OWL grammar works conceptually.
>
> Duane
>
>
> Francis McCabe wrote:
>
>
>> +1
>> In fact, I am hard put to understand how you can *store* semantics.
>> You can only store data. The best that you can do is store a
>> description of the semantics; but that is not the same thing.
>>
>> On that theme, IBM and others at the U of Georgia recently
>> released a paper on semantic annotations of Web services. Have
>> not yet had the time to digest this properly, but could be
>> interesting... if IBM makes a play in the standards space with this.
>>
>> The link to the paper is:
>>
>> http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/g/g.nsf/img/semanticsdocs/$file/
>> wssemantic_annotation.pdf
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> On May 2, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Duane Nickull wrote:
>>
>>
>>> John
>>> (aka "Meggan". Hey - how you dress in private is none of our
>>> business ;-)
>>>
>>> Just joking!!
>>>
>>> This is a good question.
>>>
>>> The registry is one way that one could store semantics however
>>> semantics are not required to be explicit and there are other
>>> models for sharing information beside registry. At the abstract
>>> level it represents a facet of the model where the information
>>> available is meaningful. Therefore, a registry will not be in
>>> the reference model as a normative, core element.
>>>
>>> We decided to add a non normative section to explain some of
>>> these manifestations. How one goes from "Data Model" to
>>> Messages, Availability to Registry, Policy to on the wire
>>> security etc.
>>>
>>> It would be great if you could hook up with the person with this
>>> section and offer proof reading services. Value your input.
>>>
>>> Duane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> meggan hardin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> My assumptions (so far) about the central metadata concepts
>>>> have been that the reg/rep holds this data. Are we delving to
>>>> the level of defining specific types of resources / components
>>>> that should be included in a major component such as the reg/
>>>> rep? I think that the concept of storing semantic metadata as
>>>> an independent integration reference point is important enough
>>>> to be included in the RM.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW - Contivo terms the semantic metadata repository the
>>>> "enterprise vocabulary"...
>>>>
>>>> john
>>>>
>>>> Smith, Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Violent agreement.
>>>>> martin
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Schuldt, Ron L [mailto:ron.l.schuldt@xxxxxxxx]
>>>>> Sent: Fri 4/29/2005 6:39 PM
>>>>> To: Smith, Martin; Sharma, Sameer; Duane Nickull;
>>>>> john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Cc: ebSOA OASIS TC; soa-rm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sameer will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that his
>>>>> intent was
>>>>> to include the notion of central metadata within a "Reference
>>>>> Architecture" not the Reference Model. Appendix B is the place
>>>>> where
>>>>> example use cases would be defined. I suspect that Sameer might be
>>>>> willing to submit an example use case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Schuldt
>>>>> Senior Staff Systems Architect
>>>>> Lockheed Martin Enterprise Information Systems
>>>>> 11757 W. Ken Caryl Ave.
>>>>> #F521 Mail Point DC5694
>>>>> Littleton, CO 80127
>>>>> 303-977-1414
>>>>> ron.l.schuldt@xxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Smith, Martin [mailto:Martin.Smith@xxxxxxx]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:19 PM
>>>>> To: Sharma, Sameer; Duane Nickull; john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Cc: ebSOA OASIS TC; soa-rm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sameer - -
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me practice being Matt <g>:
>>>>>
>>>>> The term " 'central' metadata" presumes a specific implementation
>>>>> strategy and should not be in the RM. Perhaps "metadata
>>>>> associated with
>>>>> the service should be available in the environment." Now in
>>>>> my example
>>>>> SOA for Appendix B, I'll probably show a UDDI services
>>>>> directory, or
>>>>> maybe a combo registry/repository that can in fact store all the
>>>>> description metadata.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Sharma, Sameer [mailto:sameer.sharma@xxxxxxxx]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 2:16 PM
>>>>> To: Smith, Martin; Duane Nickull; john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Cc: ebSOA OASIS TC; soa-rm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My feeling is that some of what you are alluding to might be
>>>>> covered by
>>>>> UDDI,
>>>>> however as is happening in an instance of SOA deployment that I am
>>>>> involved
>>>>> in - UDDI by itself is not going to be sufficient to express
>>>>> all the
>>>>> metadata
>>>>> that is needed for a client to successfully and contextually
>>>>> interpret
>>>>> all
>>>>> that a Web Service does.
>>>>>
>>>>> My attempted solution is to capture this additional metadata by
>>>>> leveraging
>>>>> central metadata services of my enterprise. I guess what I am
>>>>> saying is
>>>>> that
>>>>> the concept of "central metadata" might be a valid candidate as a
>>>>> component of
>>>>> the Reference Architecture we are considering.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I was unable to participate in the F2F, (due to some
>>>>> last minute
>>>>> commitments that I got called into), if this topic was
>>>>> discussed, please
>>>>> accept my apologies for bringing it up again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> L
>>>>> Sameer Sharma
>>>>> Principal Applications Architect
>>>>> Lockheed Martin Corporation
>>>>> Chief Technology Office (CTO)
>>>>> 12506 Lake Underhill Road - MP 166
>>>>> Orlando, FL-32825
>>>>> Tel: (407) 306 5640
>>>>> Fax:(407) 306 1392
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Smith, Martin [mailto:Martin.Smith@xxxxxxx]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 1:38 PM
>>>>> To: Duane Nickull; john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Cc: ebSOA OASIS TC; soa-rm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
>>>>>
>>>>> Folks - -
>>>>>
>>>>> On my way home from N'awlins Wed night, I had a thought on this
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we expect services in an SOA to be independent of the
>>>>> kind of
>>>>> shared contextual knowledge we usually presume within a local
>>>>> computing
>>>>> environment. We expect that the requesting service will be able to
>>>>> obtain all the info it needs to use the responding service
>>>>> successfully
>>>>> by processing the responding service's description metadata.
>>>>> I do think
>>>>> this is a core characteristic of SOA services.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not suggesting we reinstate the use of the word
>>>>> "autonomous" as a
>>>>> handle for this concept since it demonstrably caused confusion
>>>>> at the
>>>>> f2f. If we need a handle, perhaps "self-sufficient" or
>>>>> "self-documenting" or "introspective" (naaah - forget that one.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 12:43 PM
>>>>> To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Cc: ebSOA OASIS TC; soa-rm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: [soa-rm] Re: Autonomous Services?
>>>>>
>>>>> We discussed and the submitter withdrew the submission pending
>>>>> clarification on exactly what is meant by Autonomous nature WRT
>>>>> services. It may be re-submitted and probably will however we
>>>>> do not
>>>>> have consensus on it at present.
>>>>>
>>>>> Duane
>>>>>
>>>>> john c hardin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Duane and SOA-RM group -
>>>>>> Can someone enlighten the members of the eb-soa group regarding a
>>>>>> description of Autonomous Services? Any resulting
>>>>>> conversations from
>>>>>> the meetings this week, on the subject of Autonomous Services
>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> good also.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> john
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ***********
>>>>> Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://
>>>>> www.adobe.com
>>>>> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/
>>>>> cefact/
>>>>> Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources -
>>>>> http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
>>>>> ***********
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ***********
>>> Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://
>>> www.adobe.com
>>> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
>>> Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - http://www.adobe.com/
>>> enterprise/developer/main.html
>>> ***********
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ***********
> Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://
> www.adobe.com
> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
> Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - http://www.adobe.com/
> enterprise/developer/main.html
> ***********
>
> (013)
--
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources -
http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
*********** (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (015)
|