I agree with Chris's analysis. This is a common error in modeling process
concepts, and getting it wrong makes any SOA ontology unusable.
I note that neither the PSL ontology, nor the OMG BPMNv2 semantics, nor the
UMLv2 semantics makes this error. (01)
Further, the statement: (02)
> Jack and John are instances of Actor. (03)
is at least inaccurate. Actor is a role with respect to an activity/process.
That is, every Actor relationship is ternary: Thing plays Role in
ActivityInstance, or ThingClass plays Role in ActivityClass.
Properly 'Actor' is subsumed by 'Role', there being other subclasses of 'Role',
such as 'Instrument'. A Role by itself cannot be meaningfully instantiated.
(Probably the most dramatic example of the distinctions is in 'Person
terminates employment of Person for cause', in which there is only one Actor,
and the distinct Roles of the ThingClass Person make a great deal of
difference. Further, in a for-cause termination, the passive Role of Person is
probably a consequence of an Actor Role in a different ActivityInstance.) (04)
I'm sure The Open Group SOA folk lack expertise in making such models, but
ignorance of the literature, whatever the reason, is the first step in the
development of a toilet paper standard. (05)
-Ed (06)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Office: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Mobile: +1 240-672-5800
________________________________________
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
[cmenzel@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:57 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Cc: peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA
Ontology Technical Standard (07)
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 (08)
Peter (09)
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant (010)
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
3.3.2.4: (011)
As an important part of the car wash system, John and Jack perform certain
manual tasks required for washing a car properly: (012)
• 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 (013)
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: (014)
• 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 (015)
Or something like that. (016)
Chris Menzel (017)
| -----Original Message-----
| From:
|ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 (018)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (019)
|