Fyi ... (01)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Subject: Making the Case for an SOA Ontology [was - Fwd:
[ontolog-forum] The Newest from SOA: The SOA Ontology Technical
Standard]
To: Ontology Summit 2011 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (02)
> [PeterBrown] Given the theme for this year's Ontology Summit, it would
> seem that this would be an interesting test case (maybe taken together
> with the "SOA Reference Architecture Framework" that we are finalising
> in OASIS and which, partly under my influence, is straining to avoid the
> sort of modelling pitfalls referred to) about where, how, and why we need
> to make "the case for ontology" to an increasing number of communities,
> organisations that are looking at this discipline. (03)
[ppy] Good suggestion, Peter ... (04)
Allow me to forward this over to the [ontology-summit] list (with this
modified subject line, which I invite you to review and amend as you
deem fit), so that the OntologySummit2011 related conversation can
take place there. (05)
ALL ... Let's fork the discussion here -- I would suggest that we
should focus on the conversation (on the [ontology-summit] list) so
that it jives with this year's summit theme of "Making the Case for
Ontology," and leave the discussion on the SOA Ontology from the Open
Group behind in the [ontolog-forum] (where the conversation would be
more appropriately done, if people still want to talk about it.) (06)
[ as a reference, the original thread started with Ed Dodds' post at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2010-12/msg00034.html ] (07)
Best. =ppy
-- (08)
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I would also add that it would be good if people from Ontolog joined such
>efforts and offered good ontological advice while these kinds of efforts were
>in progress.
>
> Thanks,
> Leo (09)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Research
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:47 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA
>Ontology Technical Standard
>
> Going back to the top of this thread for a moment:
> - Todd states that the SOA Ontology from the Open Group "is rubbish for many
> reasons" but that "there is some value in this work".
> - I asked for some justification to the initial statement.
> - a whole series of comments are posted regarding modelling errors and
> shortcomings...
> On the thread, we have followed a typical Ontolog Forum pattern of
> spiralling away from the initial point and exploring fine modelling points -
> all good in its own way, and a reflection of the breadth of opinion and
> ideas of the group, which is great.
>
> I actually agree with Todd and many others that there are very serious
> concerns about the methodology, the quality of the models, the
> appropriateness of the UML and owl encapsulations of the Open group
> ontology, and much more. That still doesn't make the whole exercise
> 'rubbish'. 'Disappointing', 'v poorly modelled in owl', 'depressingly
> typical modelling errors', yes. Rubbish, no.
>
> Given the theme for this year's Ontology Summit, it would seem that this
> would be an interesting test case (maybe taken together with the "SOA
> Reference Architecture Framework" that we are finalising in OASIS and which,
> partly under my influence, is straining to avoid the sort of modelling
> pitfalls referred to) about where, how, and why we need to make "the case
> for ontology" to an increasing number of communities, enterprises and
> organisations that are looking at this discipline.
>
> I want to go out on a limb here and defend those who want to use "ontology"
> (in its widest sense) as a means of establishing a common foundation for
> work within a particular group or community. Heather Kreger, in her blog
> post announcing the Open Group SOA work stated:
> "Ontologies are misunderstood - an Ontology is simply the definition of a
> set of concepts and the relationships between them for a particular domain -
> in this case, the domain is SOA. They don't HAVE to be used for reasoning.
> or semantic Web"
> I agree wholeheartedly thus far, except maybe for the word 'simply'. If we
> accept a plurality of ontologies (I know, many don't), then the definition
> of terms can be made for a specific domain - with all the opportunities and
> dangers that also presents...
> She then goes on,
> "they are more than a simple glossary which defines terms, because they also
> define relationships between them"
> Still with her this far. 'Simple' UML models, a lot of rdf, xml schemas,
> etc. often fall down here as there are often not expressions or syntax in
> those languages that are rich enough to capture the complexity of multiple
> relationships between concepts. I digress.
> Heather continues:
> "also important to note that they are more formal than Reference Models,
> usually by providing representations in OWL (just in case you want to use
> popular tools for Ontology and reasoners)."
> It is the segue between the first statement and the second that worries me.
> More than a reference model, good. Next step, full-on owl? Why?
> I suspect it is also the reason that the Open Group SOA work fails in many
> people's eyes. The leap of faith between 'we need something more formal than
> a reference model' to 'we must use owl' - and the absence of in-house or
> available skills to make that transition or propose alternative languages,
> tools, methodologies and disciplines that are appropriate to the domain and
> the problem at hand - would seem to be at the heart of many large-scale
> ontology project failures.
>
> My gut feeling is that this is worth exploring in depth in the run up to the
> F2F summit.
>
> Best regards,
> Peter
>
> --------------------
> Peter F Brown
> Independent Consultant
>
> Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies
> www.peterfbrown.com
> @pensivepeter
> P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
> -------------------- (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|