I have suggested that the difficulty with these definitions is that there is
no model based stratification of entailment. (01)
(I know many will feel that the above sentence is not understandable, but I
can only speak to whose who feel the way I do, on this matter.) (02)
Entailment means "cause", but one immediately needs to see differences
between so called logical entailment (deductive inference) and physical
(material) entailment (which might be the laws of nature and some initial
and boundary conditions). Robert Rosen's work focused on the difference
between logical and physical entailments. (03)
Stratification of entailment is implicit in the BCM specification, the
second school claims. The conceptualization is the lowest layer of four BCM
layers and is done (in one interpretation of the method) by individual uses
of "SOFT" tools like outlines or topic maps. The hard form of knowledge
representation that John talks about (or that is OWL like) is not necessary
nor really correct. At the extension and implementation layers OWL
described information structure becomes very useful. (04)
The "autonomous" conceptualization by individuals occurs all the time in
natural settings. (05)
The stratified architecture I proposed in the BCNGroup Roadmap uses this
stratification to roll-up a common representation from many individual
conceptualizations into a (well... BCM calls this the "business layer") and
I agree... but this layer is really a process or event layer in more
general settings. (By this, we imply that a type of control theory is
possible in the general cases, as related to things like nanotechnology
production, of chip design). (06)
Semantic extraction tools are many, and all these tools have this conceptual
rollup capability. Choice points are required in the BCM to check and reify
the conceptual formulation at the individual and the common layers. This
two layer stratification allows a comparison between normalized business
practices (for example) and individual "purpose". Conceptual roll-up need
not be purely linguistic in nature. (07)
http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/Notation/notation.htm (08)
A distributed harvesting of weblogs - designed for this purpose is one way
to take many community conceptual expressions and aggregate a common
conceptualization layer... as I did for Pondexture.. (09)
http://www.ontologystream.com/area1/MemeticOntology/mappingSocialSymbols.htm (010)
Agent technology and theory misses most (OR ALL) of this capability because
of AI type assumptions made about the nature of computation and the nature
of natural systems. (One might claim). (011)
The top two layers are "extension" and "implementation". Thus BCM may turn
out to be a SOA methodology. (012)
My role in this discussion may be about at an end, I invite those who are
interested in a collaboration (open source but oriented towards a business
model) to communicate with me privately. (013)
Dr Paul S Prueitt
Founder ontologystream, BCNGroup, virtualTaos
703-981-2676 (014)
-----Original Message-----
From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew S. Townley
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 5:28 AM
To: Service-Oriented Architecture CoP
Subject: RE: [soa-forum] Business Need for SOA (Was SOA Semantic Variation ) (015)
Hi Cory, (016)
I guess I see your definition of "contracted" as a sub-set of your
definition of "emergent". Where do you draw the line and when is it
important? (017)
I wasn't going to go so far as (grid-like) agents, because in a
messaging environment (which is ultimately what we're talking about
here), the only way to do that is to embed logic into the message
itself. To me, at the point where you go beyond reaction to state
transition events, there's no way it'll really work. Are you going to
allow me to execute arbitrary code inside your critical business
system? I'm not prepared to do that, and the reality is, I don't think
it's necessary. (018)
Really, (grid-like) agents are just a type of service requester in the
way that I view SOA implementation. Like many things, this is based on
your perspective. Which moves: the mountain or Mohammed? (Bear in
mind, while I read a little about the grid efforts about a year ago, it
wasn't at a tremendous level of depth) (019)
ast (020)
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 14:04, Cory Casanave wrote:
> Just as a point of interest, we could identify 3 kinds of community
> behavior;
> * Directed (Implies a director)
> * Contracted (Agreed behavior, does not imply a director - this is most of
> SOA)
> * Emergent (Group behavior emerges from common traits or behavior of
> individual - this is most of "nature")
>
> Contracted behavior is a very human thing that we have now imparted to our
> machines. Our machines previously required directed behavior (the
"workflow
> manager" instead of SOA contracts).
>
> Emergent behavior - such as can be seen in an ant colony, is very
> interesting and what some of the agent community has explored. However
> emergent behavior does imply some shared environment or (probably
> contracted) method of exchanging information - perhaps more as event
> notifications. But in the emergent case there is much less agreement but
> there is some level of common behavior. Emergent behavior probably comes
> from some kind of evolution.
>
> SOA can support all 3 kinds of behavior, but the very common case of
> creating and meeting obligations (from commerce to fire a missile) is
> generally contracted behavior.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew S. Townley
> > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 2:24 PM
> > To: Service-Oriented Architecture CoP
> > Subject: RE: [soa-forum] Business Need for SOA (Was SOA Semantic
> > Variation )
> >
> >
> > Hi Metz,
> >
> > I just wanted to address one of your points, because I believe that this
> > clarification is crucial to understanding where I'm coming from with
> > this line of thinking.
> >
> > On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 19:20, Metz Rebekah wrote:
> > > One of the largest benefits of autonomy is the ability to work
> > >
> > > co-operatively to accomplish a larger goal. However, this "directed"
> > > or
> > >
> > > "cooperative autonomy" is only effective if everyone fully understands
> > >
> > > what they are supposed to do and have the ability to do it.
> > >
> > > [->] I agree with your assertion of directed vs. cooperative
> > > autonomy. I believe there is a continuum between these two extremes.
> > > I would liken the first to the hierarchical structure of the military
> > > and the second to a think tank or research institution. What we see
> > > though is that there are a range of organizational (community)
> > > structures that work in between these extremes. My sense is that
> > > within those various organizational structures; not everyone fully
> > > understands what they are supposed to do, nor do they have the ability
> > > to fully do it. Nevertheless, the overall organization can be
> > > successful. Essentially, the community becomes self-healing.
> >
> > Actually, in this case I was lumping them together, not separating
> > them. Although, I do agree that in practice there is some difference.
> > However, in any hierarchical organization (that is at all successful),
> > there is a certain amount of delegation to people at all levels. This
> > delegation also provides the context and the reasoning necessary for
> > action. The results of that action may be directed if they are
> > delegated from someone who has a vision or goal in mind. They may also
> > not provide all of the information available. Perhaps my use of "fully"
> > in this case was misleading. What I actually meant was that they have
> > enough information to perform the task to which they have been assigned,
> > but the successful completion of that task will further the goals of the
> > organization or individual who originally assigned it.
> >
> > In my mind, the only difference between "directed autonomy" vs
> > "collective autonomy" is what you alluded to in your reply--dependent
> > vs. independent action. However, the net results are the same because
> > the successful results of either directed or collective action
> > (hopefully) provides benefits to the community.
> >
> > ast
> >
> > --
> > Join me in Dubrovnik, Croatia on May 8-10th when I will be speaking at
> > InfoSeCon 2006. For more information, see www.infosecon.org.
> >
> >
**************************************************************************
> > *************************
> > The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
> > privileged. Access to this email by anyone other than the intended
> > addressee is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of
this
> > message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or
any
> > action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and
> > may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to
> > or forward a copy of this message to the sender and delete the message,
> > any attachments, and any copies thereof from your system.
> >
**************************************************************************
> > *************************
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-
> > forum/
> > Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
> > Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
> > Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
> Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
> Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
> Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP
--
Join me in Dubrovnik, Croatia on May 8-10th when I will be speaking at
InfoSeCon 2006. For more information, see www.infosecon.org. (021)
****************************************************************************
***********************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
Access to this email by anyone other than the intended addressee is
unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any
review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of
this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any
copies thereof from your system.
****************************************************************************
***********************
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP (022)
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/soa-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/soa/
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AnnouncementofSOACoP (023)
|