No shirts no shoes no service still applies to SOA. If the
interaction is all internal, a RESTfull API-style interface is the way to go. When
dealing with the third parties, command and control is not necessarily an
option. As the system architect for Adelaide Power has said “an agent is
an object that can say no” Now distributed agents vs. distributed objects
is a much longer discussion than an ontology forum can probably stand, but
there is a semantic side of it…
For example
Emergency Distribution elements pack multiple documents in the
same element, with the same signature. It is assumed that not all recipients will
understand all documents. The CAP (a special element that is largely text) is
assumed to be readable by all agencies. Some documents are explicitly encrypted
so that they are “semantically void” to all but the intended recipient.
These messages are designed for wide distribution, including storing and
forwarding, with support for all sorts of asynchronicity. A simple api, as in
REST, does not really work there.
NG911, the next generation emergency system is much the same,
with messages flowing in and out of districts, has a similar pattern, with
similar needs. Partners may be multiple networks away, with some messages
released at a later time, and messages flowing through multiple layers of
dispatch with a signature / checksum intact.
Now I am not hostile to REST. Most of the early adoptions of
oBIX were RESTfull. I acknowledge RESTfull programming styles do not need the
nuances of acknowledgement. But I am more interested in the emergent behaviors
of agents.
Ontology work is often an attempt to create some sort of machine
intelligence (which I will not define today) or human-like interactions. Yet
the human brain is filled with squabbling automata that act more like agents than
like controls. Consciousness (which I will not define today) appears to be an
emergent behavior above the automata, and therefore different than the sum of
the automata. In the same way, markets are an emergent behavior from the market
agents, and therefore different than the sum of the agents.
From there, I could leap to a rant about UFOs vs. DSLs as semantic
goals. But for now, I will stick with preferring agent-to agent interactions
over object-to-object.
tc
"If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing
well" - Peter Drucker
|
Toby Considine
TC9, Inc
Chair, OASIS oBIX Technical Committee
Co-Chair, OASIS Technical Advisory Board
|
|
Email: Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx
Phone: (919)619-2104
http://www.oasis-open.org
blog: www.NewDaedalus.com
|
From: Duane Nickull
[mailto:dnickull@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 9:37 AM
To: Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The DIKW Hierarchy issue(s)
I always disgreed with “& will do
something with it” as this potentially is an anti-pattern of SOA.
The managed transparency aspect means that you should not
necessarily know what is behind the service interface, only have a well defined
interface (aka REST style SOA) and the shared state is the only important
thing.
D
On 6/19/09 3:27 PM, "Toby Considine" <Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Open, Close, Send, Rcv and Status.
WS-Assured Delivery segmented ACKs into
Got it / Got It & Understood it / Got it & Understood It & Will do
something about it
tc
"If something is not worth doing, it`s
not worth doing well" - Peter Drucker
Toby Considine
TC9, Inc Chair, OASIS oBIX Technical Committee
Co-Chair, OASIS Technical Advisory Board
Email: Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: (919)619-2104 http://www.oasis-open.org
blog: www.NewDaedalus.com
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Duane Nickull
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 9:04 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The DIKW Hierarchy issue(s)
ISO or OSI?
The OSI 7 layer model was perhaps the most confusing thing introduced to
the tech world. I used to burst out laughing when someone presented on it
and had two talking to each other (what does “abstract” mean
again?).
D
On 6/18/09 10:22 PM, "John Bottoms" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Oh, it's lost because that is the detail we didn't care
about when the model or higher level abstraction was created.
Back to Duane's drawing. In the ISO model we always have
five (5) things in communications; Open, Close, Send, Rcv
and Status. I'm thinking about this, how this applies to
an ontology. We could also discuss it using a typical
database metaphor.
But the immediate interface from the semantic level seems
like it should be a CG, or part of a CG that is used in
one of the ontology operations. There might be a shim layer
that examines the CG, and crafts an appropriate request of
the ontology.
Am I getting warmer?
-John Bottoms
First Star
Concord, MA
T: 978-505-9878
Duane Nickull wrote:
> By definition, if truly lost, the answer to all three is “ we do not
know”
>
> ;-p
>
> D
>
>
> On 6/18/09 6:56 PM, "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> Where is the Life we have lost in living?
>
> Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
>
> Where is the knowledge we have lost in
information?
>
> Eliot, the Rock
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 6:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] The DIKW Hierarchy
issue(s)
>
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for the pointer to that article about the
DIKW hierarchy:
>
> JB> A compelling paper on the DKIW hierarchy
and its mythologies
> > is by Martin Frické of the University
of Arizona:
> >
> http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/2327/01/The%5FKnowledge%5FPyramid%5FDList.pdf
>
> I have heard several talks in which people used
the hierarchy of
> Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom. In those
talks, the discussion
> of the DIKW hierarchy never added a single bit of
useful data,
> information, knowledge, or wisdom.
>
> The only purpose of the DIKW hierarchy is to
sprinkle some magic,
> hype, or pixie dust over whatever system or
methodology the speaker
> hopes to sell or glorify. I do not find that
persuasive.
>
> Following are a few excerpts from the article,
which has a good
> analysis that I hope will discourage anyone from
presenting any
> more slides with DIKW diagrams.
>
> John Sowa
>
___________________________________________________________________
>
> The Knowledge Pyramid: A Critique of the
DIKW Hierarchy
>
> by Martin Frické
>
> The paper considers whether the hierarchy, also
known as the
> ‘Knowledge Hierarchy’, is a useful and
intellectually desirable
> construct to introduce, whether the views
expressed about DIKW
> are true and have evidence in favor of them, and
whether there
> are good reasons offered or sound assumptions made
about DIKW...
>
> The answer to be defended here is that the DIKW
pyramid should be
> abandoned. It should no longer be part of the
canon of information
> science, and such related disciplines as systems
theory, information
> management, information systems, knowledge
management, and library
> and documentation science...
>
> Most of the foregoing criticisms can be
illustrated by a simple example.
> The Earth goes around the Sun (as we have learned
from Copernicus,
> Galileo, and others). That the Earth goes around
the Sun is information.
> Yet that the Earth goes around the Sun is not data
nor can it be
> inferred from data; it is not, and could not be,
DIKW information.
> Further, the question of why the Earth goes around
the Sun is a
> perfectly reasonable information seeking
why-question. And its answer,
> in terms of initial conditions, gravitational
forces, and the like,
> is itself information; and the answer, also, would
not be considered
> DIKW information....
>
> The DIKW theory also seems to encourage uninspired
methodology. The
> view is that data, existing data that has been
collected, is promoted
> to information and that information answers
questions. This encourages
> the mindless and meaningless collection of data in
the hope that one
> day it will ascend to information...
>
> So much for data and information in the DIKW
hierarchy. The pyramid
> has no foundations...
>
> Thus far the paper has been somewhat negative in
tone...
>
> What about some positive theories? Information
science has an interest
> in data, information, knowledge, and, perhaps,
wisdom. Are there some
> acceptable explications of these notions?
>
> The interim conclusions are these. There are many
different senses
> of “information”. There are even many
different senses of “information”
> in use in Information Science. It is not the case
the one of these
> senses is good, all purpose, and the others
deficient...
>
> What, then, would be the relationship between data
and information?
> All data is information. However, there is
information that is not
> data. Almost all of science is information, but,
in most contexts,
> it is not data. That the Earth rotates on its axis
and orbits the sun
> is information, but not, for most purposes, data.
>
> Information can range much more widely than data;
it can be much
> more extensive than the given. The point can be
made solely in terms
> of logic. Data typically is expressed by
Existential-Conjunctive logic,
> information requires the full First Order Logic;
the latter cannot
> even be expressed in its entirety by the former;
and, in particular,
> some statements in the latter amount to
information and they cannot
> be inferred from the former. Supposing that they
can is the central
> mistake of the DIKW pyramid...
>
> For an account of knowledge, as explained above,
Information Science
> should use a propositional account of knowledge,
i.e. knowledge-that...
> This makes knowledge and information synonymous...
>
> A person may have encyclopaedic knowledge of the
facts and figures
> relating to the countries of the world; but that
knowledge, of itself,
> will not make that person wise. The wide knowledge
has to be applicable
> to tricky problems of an ethical and practical
kind, of how to act.
>
> And the wise person must not only have wide
appropriate knowledge,
> but they must act in accordance with the knowledge
they have...
>
> Then wisdom is merely a matter of using that
practical know how to
> achieve appropriate ends. That is a reasonably
defensible view —
> it just does not want to be embedded in the DIKW
hierarchy.
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> --
> Sr. Technical Evangelist – Adobe Systems
> Chair – OASIS SOA RM Technical Committee
> Manager – Adobe LiveCycle ES Developers List
>
> Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com
> Twitter: duanechaos
> Duane’s World TV: http://www.duanesworldtv.org
> Band: http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
> Author – <a
> href=""
href="http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2009/05/web-20-architecture-book-is-here.html">http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2009/05/web-20-architecture-book-is-here.html
> “>Web 2.0 Architecture</a>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Sr. Technical Evangelist – Adobe Systems
Chair – OASIS SOA RM Technical Committee
Manager – Adobe LiveCycle ES Developers List
Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Twitter: duanechaos
Duane’s World TV: http://www.duanesworldtv.org
Band: http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
Author – <a href=""
href="http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2009/05/web-20-architecture-book-is-here.html">http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2009/05/web-20-architecture-book-is-here.html
“>Web 2.0 Architecture</a>