ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 07:59:17 -0000
Message-id: <4d11afd6.8a1ce30a.21af.0576@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Ed,    (01)

> 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.    (02)

MW: In a 4D ontology it is slightly different. Here a roleInstance
(participant) is a state of the role player, and a part of the
activityInstance (activities are spatio-temporal extents that consist of
their participants). So here the relationships are binary, but the
principles are the same and perhaps even clearer, given that the participant
state is clearly not the same thing as the whole life of the role player.    (03)

> (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.)
> 
> 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.
> 
> -Ed
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 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
> 
> 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 3.3.2.4:
> 
> 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> [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
>     (04)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (05)

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