[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] SOA organised with RDF - Use Case

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Bart Gajderowicz <bgajdero@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 21:41:29 -0400
Message-id: <CABw=6A6RJ5Fuur9TLWQnA427-hYDLJLHUuNKyAu12w6JH_hY6Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hello Duane,    (01)

Let me say that this is all speculative, and does not reflect what
Frank actually did, and why. These are my opinions. Let me also say
that I'm not discouraging the use of standard ontologies, or standards
in general. What I'm saying is that Frank brought up good points as to
why he didn't. I would like to address these.    (02)

On 7 October 2011 13:35, Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sorry to interject, but to me the term "SOA Ontology" means an ontology or
> set of formal abstract constraints that declare the knowledge of "what"
> SOA is (profuse apologies if this is errant).  If the ontology work is to
> classify things that are not exclusive to SOA, then it should not be
> called an "SOA ontology" perhaps. Is there a definition of exactly what is
> meant by SOA ontology?    (03)

BG: I believe this is the definition we are using here. The ontology
is not just the vocabulary used for an SOA (so not just the parts that
make up an SOA architecture). It's how those pieces work together that
is the issue. More specifically the interpretation. If my
interpretation doesn't fit exactly, it might be easier for me to
create my own definition that fits my immediate purpose.    (04)

> Here are some additional comments:
>>1) It was simply easier to build a custom SOA ontology than use a
>>standard one and customize it to fit the existing process.
> DN: Without knowing exactly what the presumed metric for "easier" is and
> that the definition of "standard ontology", the logic should dictate that
> if the SOA ontology is a subset of a the "standard one", it should be less
> work as it is more specialized, smaller and constrained.  If the metric is
> the number of hours it takes vs the size of the resulting ontology it
> should be logically smaller.    (05)

BG: "easier" is objective, and so is the metric. If time is of the
essence, "easier" means getting you to a working ontology the fastest.
If you're strapped for resources, than "easiest" means achieving your
goal with the least amount of resources (what ever they may be).
Perhaps one does not have the time to investigate and adopt an
existing SOA ontology. If it's to be done incrementally, as I think
Frank's was, than doing it piece by piece makes more sense. Perhaps
looking at an existing ontology, realizing that your existing process
does not fit, and establishing that building out the chunks as needed,
was a better solution.    (06)

>>I think that if someone was starting from scratch, it would be
>>beneficial to use an existing SOA ontology, at least as a starting
>>point. The ability to develop it over time and adopt it to evolving
>>needs would be a key requirement. One thing that would be lost is the
>>consistency with the original, unless there was a specific need to
>>keep it consistent.
> DN: I would strongly encourage use of the OASIS SOA Reference Model for
> SOA.  Even if the ontologist disagrees with the work, it is a good place
> to use as a common point of reference.  We knew this when the work was
> done and it still seems people are having issues thinking about it as an
> abstract point of reference.  The new work from the OASIS Technical
> Committee is also highly relevant to developing a taxonomy of class or
> sets of things within a service oriented environment.  It might be a good
> starting point to use?    (07)

BG: As would I. Recall that Frank started this back in 2007. Perhaps
he would have used OASIS now. I don't know.    (08)

I strongly believe that using manageable sub-ontologies would let a
system grow by benefiting off of the work created previously by
others.    (09)

>>Using Michael Uschold's examples from the W3C thread here:
>>If you need alternative interpretations then create them.  If you don't
>>whether a hospital is:
>>1. the building that health care is provided in
>>2. the legal organization that owns the building
>>3. the legal entity that has a number of beds registered for a specific
>>of medical services
> DN: I have worked with Michael and love his work but nothing you say here
> is specific to an "SOA Ontology" per se.  Whether or not they use service
> oriented architecture, are these statements still valid?  I would think
> that the correlation should be easy to make to the OASIS SOA Reference
> Architecture.    (010)

BG: That's correct, nothing here is specific to an SOA Ontology. These
points are an example of when a single concept is viewed differently
in different contexts.    (011)

Bart Gajderowicz, MSc.
Ryerson University
http://www.scs.ryerson.ca/~bgajdero    (012)

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    (013)

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