W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2005

RE: [SE] Ontology Driven Architectures

From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 08:53:25 -0500
To: "John Black" <JohnBlack@deltek.com>
Cc: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, cliff.jones@ncl.ac.uk
Message-ID: <OFF6B947A6.56FFEE1D-ON80256F80.004C13CF-85256F80.004B9C13@uk.ibm.com>




John,

Oops!! No John you are quite correct - my fault. Its a typo...

Thanks

Phil Tetlow
Senior Consultant
IBM Business Consulting Services
Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328


                                                                           
             "John Black"                                                  
             <JohnBlack@deltek                                             
             .com>                                                      To 
                                       Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB            
             05/01/2005 08:47                                           cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: [SE] Ontology Driven            
                                       Architectures                       
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




This is very interesting and valuable. But I wonder about one
phrase here:
"> Even so, approaches like the UML are by no means perfect.
> Although they are
> capable of capturing highly complex conceptualisations,
> current versions
> are far from semantically rich. Furthermore they can be notoriously
> unambiguous."

Did you really mean "unambiguous"? should it be "ambiguous"?
Perhaps I am misinterpreting.

Regards,
John Black
Senior Software Architect,
Time & Expense Collection Group,
Enterprise Systems Division,
Deltek Systems, Inc. www.deltek.com <http://www.deltek.com>
Office: 703-885-9656
Home Office: 434-964-1936
Mobile: 434-825-3765
JohnBlack@deltek.com <mailto:JohnBlack@deltek.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Phil Tetlow
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:29 AM
> To: SWBPD
> Cc: Cliff Jones; Grady Booch
> Subject: [SE] Ontology Driven Architectures
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You will be aware that one of the deliverables of the W3C's
> task force on
> the Application of the Semantic Web in Software Engineering
> is a publically
> available list of 'validated ideas and potential uses for the
> Semantic Web
> in Software Engineering'. As such I have done some
> provisional work over
> Christmas to produce an initial description for the concept
> of Ontology
> Driven Architectures(ODA). This has now kindly been reviewed
> by Grady Booch
> and Jeff Pan to remove any really obvious mistakes, but any further
> alterations or additions would be warmly welcomed.
>
> Ontology Driven Architectures
>
> In all well-established engineering disciplines, modelling
> reality through
> a variety of formal and semi-formal notations has proven
> itself essential
> to advancing the practice in each such domain. As such, large
> section of
> the Software Engineering profession have evolved from the concept of
> constructing models of one form or another as a means to develop,
> communicate and verify abstract designs in accordance with original
> requirements. Such ideas have spawned the fields of Computers Aided
> Software Engineering (CASE) and, more recently, Model Driven
> Architectures
> (MDA), where models are not only used for design purposes,
> but associated
> tools and techniques can be utilised further to generate executable
> artefacts for use later in the Software Lifecycle.
> Nevertheless there has
> always been a frustrating paradox present with tooling use in Software
> Engineering that has arisen from the range of modelling techniques
> available and the spectrum of systems requiring design: Engineering
> nontrivial systems demands rigour and unambiguous statement
> of concept, yet
> the more formal the modelling approach chosen, the more
> abstract the tools
> needed, often making methods difficult to implement, limiting
> the freedom
> of expression available to the engineer and proving a barrier to
> communication amongst lesser experienced practitioners. For
> these reasons
> less formal approaches have seen mainstream commercial
> acceptance in recent
> years, with the Unified Modelling Language (UML) currently
> being the most
> favoured amongst professionals.
>
> Even so, approaches like the UML are by no means perfect.
> Although they are
> capable of capturing highly complex conceptualisations,
> current versions
> are far from semantically rich. Furthermore they can be notoriously
> unambiguous. A standard isolated schematic from such a
> language, no matter
> how perfect, can still be open to gross misinterpretation by
> engineers who
> are not overly familiar with its source problem space. It is true that
> supporting annotation and documentation can help alleviate
> such problems,
> but traditionally this has still involved a separate,
> literal, verbose and
> long-winded activity often disjointed for the production of the actual
> schematic itself.
>
> What is needed instead is a way to incorporate unambiguous,
> rich semantics
> into the various semi-formal schemes underlying methods like
> the UML. In so
> doing, the ontologies inherent to a system’s real world
> problem space and
> its various abstract solution spaces could be encapsulated
> via the very
> same representations used to engineer its design. This would not only
> provide a basis for improved communication, conformance
> verification and
> automated generation of run time-artefacts, but would also present
> additional mechanisms for cross-checking the consistency of
> deliverables
> throughout the design process and enable stronger inter-project
> connectivity via the sharing of ontological concepts.
>
> In many respects an ontology can be considered as simply a
> formal model in
> its own right. Hence, given the semantically rich,
> unambiguous qualities of
> information embodiment via ontologies on the Semantic Web and the
> universality of the Semantic Web’s XML heritage, there
> appears a compelling
> argument to combine the semi-formal Model Driven techniques
> of Software
> Engineering with those common to Ontology representation on
> the Semantic
> Web.
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Phil Tetlow
> Senior Consultant
> IBM Business Consulting Services
> Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328
> ----- Forwarded by Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM on 05/01/2005 07:59 -----
>
>
>              "Jeff Pan"
>
>              <pan@cs.man.ac.uk
>
>              >
>           To
>                                        Phil
> Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "\"Grady
>              05/01/2005 07:29          Booch\""
> <gbooch@us.ibm.com>
>
>           cc
>
>
>
>      Subject
>                                        Re: Ontology Driven
> Architectures -
>                                        Help needed with an
> early
>                                        description for W3C
> please
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Phil and Grady,
>
> Sorry for getting back to you late - our servers had been down since
> Christmas and they only went back to work earlier this morning.
>
> In accordance with Grady's suggestion, what do you think if
> we extend the
> first sentence of the last paragraph into
>
> "In many respects an ontology can be considered as simply a
> *formal* model
> in its
> own right. "
>
> Happy New Year,
> Jeff
>
> --
> Dr. Jeff Z. Pan  ( http://DL-Web.man.ac.uk/ )
> School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Grady Booch" <gbooch@us.ibm.com>
> To: "Phil Tetlow" <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
> Cc: "Jeff Pan" <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Ontology Driven Architectures - Help needed with an early
> description for W3C please
>
>
> What would you think about prefixing your message with the
> sentence "In
> all well-established engineering disciplines, modeling
> reality through a
> variety of formal and semi-formal notations has proven itself
> essential to
> advancing the practice in each such domain."
>
> The point here is that are troding ground that others have,
> and thus what
> we are pursuing is relevant.
>
> Grady Booch
> IBM Fellow
>     Voice:    (303) 986-2405
>     Mobile:  (303) 898-7091
>     Fax:        (303) 987-2141
>     Video:    (303) 795-6587/6626
>     GPS:      39.620/-105.076
>     Notes:    Grady Booch/Boulder/IBM
>     E-mail:   gbooch@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
> Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> 01/02/05 10:10 AM
>
> To
> Grady Booch/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "Jeff Pan" <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Ontology Driven Architectures - Help needed with an early
> description for
> W3C please
>
>
>
>
>
> Grady, Jeff
>
> You will be aware that one of the deliverables of the W3C's
> task force on
> the Application of the Semantic Web in Software Engineering is a
> publically available list of 'validated ideas and potential
> uses for the
> Semantic Web in Software Engineering'. As such I have done
> some work over
> Christmas to produce and initial description for the idea of Ontology
> Driven Architectures (ODA). I must, however, confess that I have found
> this task somewhat difficult and would hence really appreciate your
> thoughts on my initial draft below, before I submit it to the
> general SWBP
> mailing list for consideration.
>
> Ontology Driven Architectures
>
> Large section of the Software Engineering profession have
> evolved from the
> concept of constructing models of one form or another as a means to
> develop, communicate and verify abstract designs in accordance with
> original requirements. Such ideas have spawned the fields of Computers
> Aided Software Engineering (CASE) and, more recently, Model Driven
> Architectures (MDA), where models are not only used for
> design purposes,
> but associated tools and techniques can be utilised further
> to generate
> executable artefacts for use later in the Software Lifecycle.
> Nevertheless
> there has always been a frustrating paradox present with
> tooling use in
> Software Engineering that has arisen from the range of modelling
> techniques available and the spectrum of systems requiring design:
> Engineering nontrivial systems demands rigour and unambiguous
> statement of
> concept, yet the more formal the modelling approach chosen, the more
> abstract the tools needed, often making methods difficult to
> implement,
> limiting the freedom of expression available to the engineer
> and proving a
> barrier to communication amongst lesser experienced practitioners. For
> these reasons less formal approaches have seen mainstream commercial
> acceptance in recent years, with the Unified Modelling Language (UML)
> currently being the most favoured amongst professionals.
>
> Even so, approaches like the UML are by no means perfect.
> Although they
> are capable of capturing highly complex conceptualisations, current
> versions are far from semantically rich. Furthermore they can be
> notoriously unambiguous. A standard isolated schematic from such a
> language, no matter how perfect, can still be open to gross
> misinterpretation by engineers who are not overly familiar
> with its source
> problem space. It is true that supporting annotation and
> documentation can
> help alleviate such problems, but traditionally this has
> still involved a
> separate, literal, verbose and long-winded activity often
> disjointed for
> the production of the actual schematic itself.
>
> What is needed instead is a way to incorporate unambiguous,
> rich semantics
> into the various semi-formal schemes underlying methods like
> the UML. In
> so doing, the ontologies inherent to a system?s real world
> problem space
> and its various abstract solution spaces could be encapsulated via the
> very same representations used to engineer its design. This
> would not only
> provide a basis for improved communication, conformance
> verification and
> automated generation of run time-artefacts, but would also present
> additional mechanisms for cross-checking the consistency of
> deliverables
> throughout the design process.
>
> In many respects an ontology can be considered as simply a
> model in its
> own right. Hence, given the semantically rich, unambiguous
> qualities of
> information embodiment via ontologies on the Semantic Web and the
> universality of the Semantic Web?s XML heritage, there appears a
> compelling argument to combine the semi-formal Model Driven
> techniques of
> Software Engineering with those common to Ontology
> representation on the
> Semantic Web.
>
>
> Many thanks and Happy New Year
>
> Phil Tetlow
> Senior Consultant
> IBM Business Consulting Services
> Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 13:53:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:41 UTC