Link to page: 5.4 Decision Support and Reasoning
Comment 09 on Section 5.4
Section 5 > Decision Support and Reasoning November 22 version
The "identify sources of valued information" paragraph is not clear. For example, "the services, models, and annotations provide definitions which can identify candidate sources for integration". Integration of what and what for?
RESOLUTION: Candidate sources for integration are services that can be linked together to form workflows. The semantics derived from the services provide a framework for developing automated/semi-automated workflows. The SI team is currently working to prototype to assess the feasibility of this automated workflows using service metadata. Raghu Chintalapati
Comment 08 on Section 5.4
Comment on November 22 version
Crucial in the "common representations and transformations" paragraph is the concept of "common representation". This is not reflected in the paragraph itself (where consistency is mentioned). A common representation comes before anything (this or, as rightly mentioned, transformations between representations). Consistency is secondary, in the sense that if an appropriate common representation is chosen (say OWL-DL), then consistency will be verifiable by reasoners.
RESOLUTION: The text did not intentionally leave out common representation, the text is just providing additional context, as common representation is in the title. Raghu Chintalapati
Comment 07 on Section 5.4
Comment on November 22 version
In "support for classification", if one mentions description logics and business rules here, one should probably also mention logical rules (e.g., RIF-BLD).
RESOLUTION: The SI team will look at RIF-BLD and update the section after review. Raghu Chintalapati
Comment 06 on Section 5.4
Comment on November 22 version
"the decision support system should be able to applied" should be "the decision support system should be able to be applied"
RESOLUTION: Done. Ann Wiley
Comment 05 on Section 5.4
Comment on November 22 version
The sentence "Because of the complexity of the reasoning requirements, the OWL 2 specification is required in order to support the Semantic Infrastructure 2.0" is highly debatable. First, the reasoning requirements would not lead to the use of OWL 2 per se. The expressiveness needed for representing semantic metadata might call for OWL 2, but reasoning requirements would boil down to reasoning tasks such as subsumption checking, satisfiability checking, consistency checking, query entailment, etc, for which the complete OWL 2 would most likely be impractical. Indeed general reasoning tasks with OWL 2 (the DL variant) are NEXP or higher (nondeterministic exponential, which is worse than exponential). It seems not appropriate to mention here that the OWL 2 standard will be required. More likely, one wants to resort to less expressive variants of full OWL 2 (such as the tractable OWL 2 profiles) to ensure scalability. Tasks like composition prove to be intractable when the language of the background ontologies is too expressive (which includes OWL 2).
RESOLUTION: The SI team will be validating some of these assumptions and this section will be updated based on our assessment. Note that the the roadmap is baseline that is being validated by some inception activities to assess the feasibility and validity of some of the assumptions. Raghu Chintalapati
Comment 04 on Section 5.4
Comment on November 22 version
Phrases like "choreography layered fashion" are vague and without meaning.
RESOLUTION: No longer in the document. Ann Wiley
Comment 03 on Section 5.4
Section 5 > Decision Support and Reasoning > Decision Support Functions November 22 version
The decision support functions are on a very specific technical level, and, given this granularity, they seem incomplete. For example, why mention "providing scheduling and access information to choreographer", if you do not mention how choreography itself would work -- or for that matter how it is defined?
RESOLUTION: The decision support functions are not meant to be a final list of all functions, they provide a baseline for further review and assessment. Specifically the requirements phase of the project will determine the final set of services and functions. The ones currently listed in the roadmap are primarily to communicate the kinds of services/functions that are required. Please feel free to suggest additional services/functions that can be added to the list. Raghu Chintalapati
Comment 02 on Section 5.4
Comment on November 22 version
The function "execute reasoning systems against gathered data providing classification and additional data" is meaningless: what is additional data? Why are functions that would actually enable the service discovery, as described before, not mentioned?
RESOLUTION: The statement has been updated to make it more accurate and understandable. Raghu Chintalapati
Comment 01 on Section 5.4
Comment on November 22 version
Use case bullets that drive these requirements (comment above) are not providing any explanation.
RESOLUTION: The use cases listed in this section are used as a placeholder to highlight that decision support directly impacts all the key requirements. Decision support is the mechanism for discovering all artifacts and services irrespective of the domain; this includes clinical forms, life science services, etc. Raghu Chintalapati
