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:  [mailto:] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 6:49 PM
To: Duane Nickull; ; ; ; ; ; ; 
Cc: 
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:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 2:40 PM
To: ; ;
; ;
; ;

Cc: 
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:  [mailto:] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 1:00 PM
To: Duane Nickull; ; ; ; ; ; ; 
Cc: 
Subject: RE: [soa-blueprints] Anti-Blueprints - Number of services

Do you think we need an ontology pattern?

:)

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:52 AM
To: Marc Adlam; ; ;
; ;
; 
Cc: 
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'皻re (it is our reason for being)

Duane