[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA Ontolog

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:57:46 -0600
Message-id: <75829C4C-EB43-41BC-8227-58C07BC00A06@xxxxxxxx>
On Dec 20, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Research wrote:
That's a pretty sweeping statement, Todd
Care to share why it is "rubbish"? And if there are valuable lessons to be learned, I'd be pleased to learn them


Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant

I haven't studied the document carefully, so anything I say should be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems like there are some pretty obvious instance/subclass confusions.  (I sorta thought Woods straightened everyone out about is-a ambiguities in 1975, but whatever! ;-)  From the Car Wash example

As an important part of the car wash system, John and Jack perform certain manual tasks required for washing a car properly:

• Jack and John are instances of Actor
• WashWindows is an instance of Task and is done by John
• PushWashButton is an instance of Task and is done by Jack

Seems to me from the brief description that WashWidows and PushWashButton are supposed to be classes whose instances are actual atomic tasks — John's actual window-washings and Jack's actual wash-button-pushings.  If so, then it seems to me that the little ontology fragment above is wrong and that, instead of the second and third lines, they should have:

• WashWindows is a subclass of Task
• Instances of WashWindows are done by John
• PushWashButton is a subclass of Task
• Instances of PushWashButton are done by Jack

Or something like that.

Chris Menzel

| -----Original Message-----
| From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
| bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Todd J Schneider
| Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2010 00:53
| To: [ontolog-forum]
| Subject: Re: [-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA
| Ontology Technical Standard

| To all concerned or interested the SOA ontology put forth by the Open Group is
| rubbish for many reasons. I provided several pages of comments and
| justifications to an earlier draft and almost all of my comments were not
| accepted.

| However, there is some value in this work. It can be used as an example of
| errors that are commonly made.

| Finally, I'd like to commend Chris Harding in his efforts to reconcile very
| divergent views and opinions.

| Todd

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    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>