"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".
"Heather Kreger is IBM?s lead architect for
Smarter Planet, Policy, and SOA..."
The first thing is a small beer, one may
state whatever he likes depending on the degree of his
narrow-mindedness.
The second thing is more serrious. It much
concerns the big issue of ostensible purposes and real goals of big
companies like IBM, HP, Oracle, SAP, etc., the listed members of the SO A
group, http://www.opengroup.org/soa/.
A couple of years ago, IBM popped up with
the global compaign of Smarter Planet, to rival the Cisco's effort
of Intelligent Urbanization, just to miss natural capital,
social/collective capital, organizational capital, rational
capital, insisting on digital intelligence and ICT as the key drivers of
growth.
For long time, environmental
sustainability/eco-smartness has been alerted as a strategic element of smart
growth, along with Human Intelligence and Digital
Intelligence.
As the world proves, the evil of global
companies is their unlimited capacity to indoctrinate any conceptual
partiality/triviality and defective schema, presenting all as a "disruptuve
technology", and thus capitalizing on another destructive social/economic
disruption.
Azamat
Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 7:03
PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New
post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA Ontology Technical Standard
Leo,
I tried on several occasions both during telecons and with
written comments to no avail. Though perhaps I wasn't the ideal
candidate to provide guidance, I tried to provide examples and
justifications for my comments. Beating ones head against a wall wears
thin after a while.
Cheers.
Todd
-----ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote: -----
To:
"peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum] "
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> From: "Obrst, Leo J."
<lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> Sent by:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: 12/22/2010
07:49PM Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA:
The SOA Ontology Technical Standard
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
-----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 --------------------
|
-----Original Message----- | From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum- |
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West | Sent: Wednesday, 22
December 2010 08:59 | To: '[ontolog-forum] ' | Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA | Ontology
Technical Standard | | Dear Ed, | | > 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. | | 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. | | > (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 _________________________________________________________________ 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
_________________________________________________________________ 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
|