My schedule is as follows so I probably cannot make the call. I am in the
bay area next Thursday for a while though so we might discuss face to face
or at another time. (02)
This Thursday International Video Games Summit, Vancouver
This Friday NCTU Burnaby (Car trip)
May 7-9 (possibly 10th) - Java One, Moscone, SF
May 13-17 - XTECH , Business Objects Tutorial, Paris France
May 21-23 Developer summit (tentative)
May 29-30 SD Times SOA enterprise talk, SF
June 4-8 - Possible short lead time LC ES press tours added at will (various
June 12, 14 Adobe Developer relations summit.
June 18th, Seoul (Flex)
June 19th, Hong Kong (LiveCycle)
June 20th, Singapore (LiveCycle)
June 22nd, Bangalore (Flex)
June 26th, Sydney, AUS (Flex and LiveCycle) (03)
On 5/1/07 5:43 PM, "Peter Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote: (05)
> Thanks, Duane.
> If there is interest to explore how we could pursue this further, we
> could put this on the agenda of this Thursday's (May-3) Ontolog
> operations planning and review conference call.
> Please indicate interest either by responding to this thread, or to
> Duane and myself offline, and let me know if you could make the May-3
> call (~1-Hour starting 10:30am PDT / 1:30pm EDT / 17:30 UTC). See:
> ... Can you make the call, Duane?
> Regards. =ppy
> On 4/30/07, Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Sorry for cross posting, but the SOA community is conducting some work with
>> ontological implications. The OASIS group is working hard on a reference
>> architecture to supplement the abstract reference model. The RA work
>> requires a deeper level of definition as it is more concrete.
>> Any help or advice on how these two groups might be able to help each other
>> would be appreciated. If there is interest, I can raise the issue of a
>> formal liaison with the OASIS side and also get the administrivia out of the
>> way so we can get some input.
>> There will be a draft of the RA document coming out soon too and if this
>> community could help with the ontological aspects it would be appreciated.
>> ------ Forwarded Message
>> From: Danny Thornton <danny_thornton2@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
>> To: <michael.poulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <soa-rm-ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Policy_Contract_Business diagram - some questions
>> Hi Micheal,
>> A proposition is an expression whose truth can be
>> measured. The following is the definition from the
>> Business via Services section.
>> Proposition: A proposition is an expression, normally
>> in a language that has a well-defined written form,
>> that expresses some property of the world from the
>> perspective of a stakeholder. The truth of the
>> proposition may be measured using a decision
>> procedure by examining the world and checking that
>> the proposition and the world are consistent with each
>> The beginning diagram in the policies and contracts
>> model is a tie to the Business via Services section.
>> The differentiating meaning between Policy and
>> Contract is in the Business Via Services world. The
>> IT mechanisms measure the propositions of both
>> policies and contracts.
>> --- michael.poulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Hi Folks,
>>> I guess you are having fun... at the F2F
>>> I have (finally) looked at Policy_Contract_Business,
>>> posted recently, and would like to comment it.
>>> The Policy_Contract_Business diagram demonstrates a
>>> few things I do not catch:
>>> 1) what does mean a Policy contains many
>>> Propositions? Is it because this is the only way (?)
>>> to specify the state of the Policy? What does mean a
>>> Proposition gets satisfied in the State?
>>> 2) what particular architectural value a State adds
>>> to the Proposition or to a Policy if there are no
>>> constraints represented based on the State value
>>> (Private/Public)? This seems as incomplete a little.
>>> 3) the most problematic to me is the absence of
>>> relationship between a Contract and a Policy. If
>>> Proposition is interpreted as an "instance" of a
>>> Contract (which in such case becomes just a Contract
>>> Template), I think, I get it. That is, the Contract
>>> and the Policies are now in one document. (However,
>>> what the architectural difference a Public or
>>> Private Contract makes? Isn't this a security
>>> concern rather than architecture's one?). However,
>>> if you have different meaning for the Proposition, I
>>> certainly have a problem with it.
>>> For these days, I am working on the XML Schema for
>>> the Service Contract for my organisation and, after
>>> a few energetic discussions, I have to say that we
>>> came up with a Contract Template which allows a
>>> reference to the Policy (in a Policy Repository) as
>>> well as a direct Policy inclusion in the actual
>>> Contract (aka Contract instance).
>>> 4) once again, if the Proposition in the diagram is
>>> a Contract instance, why we do not name it an
>>> Thank you,
>>> - Michael
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)