Hi - (01)
At 19:23 09/01/2007, Brad Cox, Ph.D. wrote:
>Chris Harding wrote:
> > 1. There were no suggestions for specific changes.
> >
> > This is an indication that, though the draft is very
> > incomplete, what is there is reasonably sound.
>
>I wouldn't take silence as consent. I for one didn't respond because
>I have no idea what "SOA Ontology" means. An ontology is a
>formalized belief system; properties of groups. Of people, not
>architectures (the A in SOA). It might make sense to build an
>ontology of SOA interest groups such as this one, or of DOD as a
>whole. But I just can't get a grip on what "SOA Ontology" means
>without more context than I found in the paper. (02)
I responded to this in my reply to Paul's aditional comment. (03)
> > 5. Granularity.
> > At this stage, we try to comprehend all levels of granularity of
> > service. This is an ambitious aim - but it's worth pursuing
> > unless/until someone comes up with an insuperable objection.
>
>I would suggest a "walk before run" approach of choosing the
>granularity that most interests you, stating that choice, discussing
>it thoroughly while treating the others as possibilities for
>implementing the chosen objects/services/whatevers.
>
>It is very hard to imagine anything good coming of treating all
>levels of granularity as having anything in common (beyond the
>(ab)use of SOA in their name). Its like expecting to find a common
>ontology for subatomic particle physicists and astrophysicists on
>the grounds they both have physics in their name. (04)
Owen supports you on this. I agree that it is wise to examine
particular instances of any general definition or principle, in order
to validate it. We have started to define particular examples to
validate the ontology (see
http://www.opengroup.org/projects/soa-ontology/ ) and would welcome
further examples - or counterexamples - at different levels of granularity. (05)
>Chris Harding wrote:
>>Hello -
>>Thanks to everyone who commented on this draft! There were a number
>>of significant and useful comments. The volume of mail built up
>>over the Christmas period and, rather than replying to all of these
>>mails individually, Iam going to try to pick out the key points,
>>and suggest how we should move forward.
>>1. There were no suggestions for specific changes.
>>This is an indication that, though the draft is very
>>incomplete, what is there is reasonably sound. We should now
>>therefore concentrate on extending it, rather than on validating what is
>there.
>>2. We should investigate how our ontology relates to existing
>>upper ontologies.
>>Yes, we do want to relate the ontology to existing ontologies -
>>specific ones (such as OWL-S), and upper ones too. James, I'd be
>>happy to discuss this further, as you suggest.
>>3. Abstract versus Concrete Services.
>>We thought about making our definition of service wholly abstract,
>>but came down on the side of its being concrete - or, more
>>precisely, our "Service" concept includes both the abstract service
>>definition and its concrete realization. We felt that this is what
>>will make most sense to most people.
>>It could be useful to develop an analysis that separates the
>>abstract and concrete components. Andrew's definition
>>
>>>Abstract (Technology) Service: a function or capability that is
>>>specifiable in terms of the specific messages (including any exceptions
>>>and responses), QoS and the side effects or changes that are a
>>>consequence of using it.
>>>
>>>Concrete (Technology) Service: a specific implementation of the
>>>Abstract (Technology) Service using products, programming languages, and
>>>other specific technologies.
>>provides a starting point for this - though I would like to see it
>>generalized to apply to all services, not just technology services.
>>4. Business Services, SOA Services, and Technical Services.
>>This is probably the most significant point from an Open Group
>>perspective. We should discuss it in more detail as we proceed to
>>refine the ontology. (I'd be interested, Ken BTW, to see your draft
>>White Paper.)
>>Ken started a good discussion on the distinction between "Business
>>Service" and "SOA Service". There is an important distinction to be
>>made here, but I agree with the point that Andrew made: that
>>business v SOA may not be the best distinction to make. We have had
>>much discussion in The Open Group in the value of SOA in connecting
>>business and technical worlds, and there are many people who
>>believe that SOA should start at the business architecture level.
>>Indeed, there have been suggestions that the decision on whether a
>>service has a computer-based implementation should be left until
>>quite late in the architecture development process. A service could
>>initially be defined in abstract terms, and could have both
>>technical and non-technical realizations. One example of this that
>>was quoted is of an inventory service which, in the same
>>corporation, could be implemented in one country by people with
>>clipboards and in another by RFID readers.
>>There is a distinction between services that are implemented using
>>technology and services that are not; there is a distinction
>>between services that contribute directly to the business mission
>>and services that contribute indirectly by supporting other
>>services; and there is a distinction between an abstract service
>>and a service that is realized by some means (technology-based or
>>other); but all of these services can be SOA services in the widest
>>sense. We need more discussion on this point but, fortunately, it
>>impacts on the next level of detail to which we might take the
>>ontology rather than on the draft ontology as it currently stands.
>>Finally, it may be that it is at least as important to consider the
>>difference between business and technical viewpoints as it is to
>>consider the difference between services implemented through
>>technology and by other means.
>>5. Granularity.
>>At this stage, we try to comprehend all levels of granularity of
>>service. This is an ambitious aim - but it's worth pursuing
>>unless/until someone comes up with an insuperable objection.
>>6. Consulting firm and Government department practices.
>>It's not appropriate for The Open Group to get involved in this discussion.
>>7. Relation of the ontology to the real world.
>>Paul provided an interesting analysis of the relation between the
>>ontology and the real world. This is an important topic but, for
>>the purpose of developing the SOA ontology, while I agree that
>>formal methods cannot completely capture the rich world of social
>>interaction, we have to work with the tools at our disposal, and
>>formal ontology is the best I currently know of.
>>If we accept this limitation, the key area is the extent to which
>>the ontology can capture "meta" levels of information about
>>information (about information . . ). I believe that OWL-FULL is
>>powerful enough to do this to any extent that we could wish. The
>>question is, whether we need all of that power, because things will
>>be much simpler if we can stick with OWL-DL or OWL-LITE. But we
>>will need further discussion of this point as we extend the
>>ontology to describe technical implementation interfaces.
>>8. Service discovery, trading, and matching
>>Joshua asks why these are absent from the ontology. The answer is
>>simply that we havent got to those issues yet. We are hoping to
>>address them at the end of this month (when we have a face-to-face
>>meeting at The Open Group conference in San Diego).
>>
>>At 10:16 21/12/2006, Chris Harding wrote:
>>>Hello -
>>>
>>>The Open Group is developing a formal ontology for SOA, and we have
>>>now reached the stage where we have a draft that we would like to
>>>share with other organizations that are working on SOA, in order to
>>>obtain feedback and comment. We believe that a common ontology for
>>>SOA can be a very valuable resource for everyone to use, and we
>>>therefore wish to receive input from as wide a constituency as possible.
>>>
>>>I think that this will be of interest to the SICoP as well as the
>>>SOACoP, and we would appreciate input from both groups. This call for
>>>input is going to both lists, and we would appreciate comments from
>>>all members of them, either directly to me (c.harding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>>>or to one or both of the lists. (Comments to both lists will generate
>>>the best debate!)
>>>
>>>The current draft is draft 0.6 and is available from our web page at
>>>http://www.opengroup.org/projects/soa-ontology/ together with some
>>>simple example ontologies that import it. Perhaps the best starting
>>>point is the presentation at
>>>http://www.opengroup.org/projects/soa-ontology/doc.tpl?gdid=12153
>>>which I delivered at the recent OMG meeting. This explains the
>>>ontology and how we think it will be used.
>>>
>>>We will produce a new draft in January, and will address the comments
>>>in that draft.
>>>
>>>All the best for Christmas and the New Year!
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>+++++
>>>
>>>========================================================================
>>>Dr. Christopher J. Harding
>>>Forum Director for SOA and Semantic Interoperability
>>>THE OPEN GROUP
>>>Thames Tower, 37-45 Station Road, Reading RG1 1LX, UK
>>>Mailto:c.harding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone (mobile): +44 774 063 1520
>>>http://www.opengroup.org
>>>
>>>Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference
>>>Marriott Mission Valley, San Diego, CA, January 29 - 31, 2007
>>>Member Meetings: January 29 - February 2, 2007
>>><http://www.opengroup.org/sandiego2007/>http://www.opengroup.org/sandiego2007/
>>>========================================================================
>>>TOGAF is a trademark of The Open Group
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/sicop-forum/
>>>Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/
>>>Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
>>>To Post: mailto:sicop-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP
>>
>>Regards,
>>Chris
>>+++++
>>========================================================================
>>Dr. Christopher J. Harding
>>Forum Director for SOA and Semantic Interoperability
>>THE OPEN GROUP
>>Thames Tower, 37-45 Station Road, Reading RG1 1LX, UK
>>Mailto:c.harding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone (mobile): +44 774 063 1520
>>http://www.opengroup.org
>>Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference
>>Marriott Mission Valley, San Diego, CA, January 29 - 31, 2007
>>Member Meetings: January 29 - February 2, 2007
>><http://www.opengroup.org/sandiego2007/>http://www.opengroup.org/sandiego2007/
>>========================================================================
>>TOGAF is a trademark of The Open Group
>> _________________________________________________________________
>>Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/sicop-forum/
>>Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/
>>Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ To Post:
>>mailto:sicop-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP
>
>
> (06)
Regards, (07)
Chris
+++++ (08)
========================================================================
Dr. Christopher J. Harding
Forum Director for SOA and Semantic Interoperability
THE OPEN GROUP
Thames Tower, 37-45 Station Road, Reading RG1 1LX, UK
Mailto:c.harding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone (mobile): +44 774 063 1520
http://www.opengroup.org (09)
Enterprise Architecture Practitioners Conference
Marriott Mission Valley, San Diego, CA, January 29 - 31, 2007
Member Meetings: January 29 - February 2, 2007
<http://www.opengroup.org/sandiego2007/>http://www.opengroup.org/sandiego2007/
========================================================================
TOGAF is a trademark of The Open Group (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|