[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services
So the more appropriate semantic would have been:
<owl:AllDifferent>
<owl:distinctMembers rdf:parseType="Collection">
<owl:Class rdfs:Class="#Ken"/>
<owl:Class rdfs:Class="#Frank"/>
<owl:Class rdfs:Class="#Matt"/>
</owl:distinctMembers>
</owl:AllDifferent>
See semantics are good for something :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:51 AM
To: marchadr@wellsfargo.com; Duane Nickull; [email protected];
Marc.Davies@uk.fujitsu.com; [email protected];
steve.g.jones@capgemini.com; [email protected];
klaskey@mitre.org
Cc: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services
If I remember correctly, its not as cut and dried as me agreeing or disagreeing. In fact, I've taken a _relatively_ (and if you knew me, you'd know what this implies ;)) neutral stance on semantics.
A more appropriate structure would also show Ken and Frank classes being in disjoint with Matt,Frank and Matt,Ken respectively. In other words, NO consensus.
-matt
-----Original Message-----
From: marchadr@wellsfargo.com [mailto:marchadr@wellsfargo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 6:49 PM
To: Duane Nickull; marchadr@wellsfargo.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services
So the question is:
<owl:Class rdf:ID="OasisSOA-RM-Member" />
<owl:Class rdf:ID="Ken" />
<owl:Class rdf:ID="Frank">
<owl:Class rdf:ID="Matt">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#OasisSOA-RM-Member"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#agreeWithSemantics"/>
<owl:minCardinality rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">1</owl:minCardinality>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#Ken"/>
<owl:disjointWith rdf:resource="#Frank"/>
</owl:Class>
or
<owl:Class rdf:ID="Matt">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#OasisSOA-RM-Member"/>
<rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#agreeWithSemantics"/>
<owl:minCardinality rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">0</owl:minCardinality>
</owl:Restriction>
</rdfs:subClassOf>
<owl:complementOf rdf:resource="#Ken"/>
<owl:complementOf rdf:resource="#Frank"/>
</owl:Class>
:)
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 2:40 PM
To: marchadr@wellsfargo.com; [email protected];
Marc.Davies@uk.fujitsu.com; [email protected];
steve.g.jones@capgemini.com; [email protected];
klaskey@mitre.org
Cc: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services
AARRHG!!
See attached. This is a visualization of the "parking lot" and the resultant "sink hole" that developed below the "trout pond" in SOA RM. You'll note semantics was a subject that Frank, Ken and matt cannot even see from their observation point over the edge.
Duane
-----Original Message-----
From: marchadr@wellsfargo.com [mailto:marchadr@wellsfargo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 1:00 PM
To: Duane Nickull; marc.adlam@oracle.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services
Do you think we need an ontology pattern?
:)
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:52 AM
To: Marc Adlam; marchadr@wellsfargo.com; [email protected];
mmatsumura@infravio.com; [email protected];
Theo.Beack@softwareagusa.com; [email protected]
Cc: soa-blueprints@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services
Marc wrote:
"What I've noticed on this TC so far is that we struggle with semantics in a way that's similar to what first-time SOA implementers face. We are looking for standard definitions, e.g., give me one standard definition of a service, one standard definition for SOA, etc., so I can document my patterns in a consistent manner. I see organizations adopting SOA who are trying to solve these semantic problems as well: one definition for order, one for customer, etc. Short-term, we in the Blueprints TC have agreed to look to SOA-RM for standard definitions, and I see that as a welcome development. Patterns and semantics should enjoy a separation of concerns."
+ 1
C'est notre raison d'�tre (it is our reason for being)
Duane
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]