ontolog-forum
[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" <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Barkmeyer, Edward J." <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:19:33 -0500
Message-id: <63955B982BF1854C96302E6A5908234414B8EB7EB9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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)

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