This sounds like a good project then. There are a few works in addition
to OASIS Frank may wish to look at. (01)
The first is the SoaML work by Core Casanave, the second is the SOA
Ontology work done by the Open Group. (02)
Great stuff. (03)
On 10/7/11 6:41 PM, "Bart Gajderowicz" <bgajdero@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (05)
>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.
>On 7 October 2011 13:35, Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Sorry to interject, but to me the term "SOA Ontology" means an ontology
>> set of formal abstract constraints that declare the knowledge of "what"
>> SOA is (profuse apologies if this is errant). If the ontology work is
>> 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
>> meant by SOA ontology?
>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.
>> 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
>> if the SOA ontology is a subset of a the "standard one", it should be
>> work as it is more specialized, smaller and constrained. If the metric
>> the number of hours it takes vs the size of the resulting ontology it
>> should be logically smaller.
>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.
>>>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
>> starting point to use?
>BG: As would I. Recall that Frank started this back in 2007. Perhaps
>he would have used OASIS now. I don't know.
>I strongly believe that using manageable sub-ontologies would let a
>system grow by benefiting off of the work created previously by
>>>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
>> is specific to an "SOA Ontology" per se. Whether or not they use
>> oriented architecture, are these statements still valid? I would think
>> that the correlation should be easy to make to the OASIS SOA Reference
>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.
>Bart Gajderowicz, MSc.
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (07)