Paul,
Your questions/suggestions have to be considered within the multiple
contexts that could apply; (01)
* Within the context of an SOA demo it would be great for you or any
interested parties to show how the "strings" in a model and/or service
specification can be related to ontologically grounded concepts. However I
would consider this to be one of the capabilities that would be shown by a
participating entity with respect to the demo specification (still to be
developed) and not necessarily part of the core specification. The core
specification should be one that can be implemented with off-the-shelf SOA
technologies. Better implementations (or features) with semantic
technologies are then welcome. (02)
* With regard to the "real" Records Management specification, that will be
developed in the OMG process as Larry has detailed separately. The degree
to which that specification will be semantically grounded will be determined
by the RFP (Being written now) and the submitters to that RFP. To influence
that specification being more semantically grounded you would need to be or
work with an OMG submitter. (03)
* With regard to where we wish SOA would go and strategies for bringing
together the semantic technologies with SOA, this is a great area that we
are very much interested in. But, the demo and, I suspect, the records
management standard can't be dependent on something that far over the event
horizon. (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: soa-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Prueitt (ontologystream)
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 2:07 PM
> To: 'Service-Oriented Architecture CoP'
> Cc: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: RE: [soa-forum] SOA Demo - Records Management Option
>
> Nara document management
>
> http://www.archives.gov/era/rms
>
> has long been something that I have had an interest in, since my design of
> a
> declassification engine (compliant to US EO 12958) in 1996. I understand
> that the current declassification engine is still based on this 1996 work,
> at least in part.
>
> A set of issues arises based on the questions related to;
>
> why a document is to be moved
> from one place to another.
>
> The most obvious set of services is the set of informational resources
> that
> helps a human (or automatic process) decide if specific information is to
> be
> classified (kept classified) or not. Policy about this issue comes from
> the
> Executive Branch of government and is conditioned by laws passed by the
> Congress and judgments made by the Judiciary. This policy is mostly not
> classified (according to the principles established by Constitutional law
> in
> the US).
>
> Here is the issue that perhaps the group would like to consider (in the
> context of Cory's suggestion that the SOA demo be designed to reflect the
> concerns of this document - now circulated).
>
> Let us take an example. THE meaning of "Agency_Offical_Name_Current" is
> to
> be defined within various lines of business models (such as using BPEL
> business process execution language). In fact a set of terms will have
> similar definition.
>
> My group makes a distinction between the following
>
> Services, web-services, service webs
>
> Where "services" are defined outside of IT orientation, and service webs
> are
> naturally occurring social networks.
>
>
> The core SOA methodology issue is about the reconciliation of meaning
> applied to terms (managed vocabulary) within the relevant naturally
> occurring service webs (social networks).
>
> Is there a need for reconciliation of "semantics" within a SOA deployment
> at
> Nara? Or can "semantics" be defined (by IT community) and imposed on
> Nara?
>
>
> Services based on the Nara document management activities has both an
> internal and external set of interfaces (over which "services" might be
> defined and responded to). The internal interfaces (some have suggested)
> are
> "more complex" because there is less conformative pressure at the
> individual
> level. (Conflicts at the cultural level often have root causes because of
> reconciliation failures between individuals).
>
> "Meaning" thus has several simultaneous viewpoints. Often these
> viewpoints
> express opposing purposes.
>
> I have long made the argument, often poorly, in the CIO Council meetings;
> that if "meaning" is too narrowly defined one builds "service systems"
> that
> have to be understood for how they are designed. So software designers
> may
> create dysfunctionality if a service we wish to ask for, and are legally
> entitled to receive, is effectively not provided because of a burdensome
> hindrance.
>
> If this hindrance is foreseeable, then the software designers may place
> themselves in legal bind.
>
> Often this means an exclusion of not only "meaning" express-able from
> other
> viewpoints but also a violation of actual federal laws (reflecting the
> primary Constitutional requirements for access to government services.
>
> US Citizen access to US federal government services cannot be, by federal
> laws, unnecessarily or unreasonably hindered by the means through which
> actual services are rendered. In many cases, restrictions of access are
> mandated by law. In many other case, access is mandated by federal law.
> Service architecture for Nara must be sensitive to at least this
> distinction, other wise violation of law will occur (by the computer
> "system".) Hummm...
>
> Web-services (expressed with a SOA) must have the following dimensions
>
> 1) re-use that is measured against community transparent utility functions
> 2) agility measured as the ability to respond in novel circumstances, and
> to
> novel requests
> 3) governance that is open to inspection from stakeholders
> 4) commonality within a community or community of communities
> 5) competency that is measured at several levels including competency
> expressed by individual capability and community capability
>
>
> If the NARA demo of SOA becomes narrowly defined without considering these
> dimensions, then the IT effort might cause additional hindrance in how
> citizens and government collaborate.
>
> Conformance to existing federal law may break down.
>
> The avenue towards a multi-level description of meaning may be through a
> synthesis of some aspects of knowledge management (KM) practices and SOA
> more broadly perceived.
>
> These are just some suggestions for the group to consider.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (06)
|