Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Toards an Ontology for Computer Networking and Concepts

I was writing a response to a discussion forum item in a course about computer networking, this evening -- a course that, in a tools sense, is essentially addressing some of networking with Cisco network routing components, and I know there's also Juniper in digital networking -- but in a moment in which it did not seem like a course simply conveying a single corporate model for computer networking, I thought it was apropos to begin a comment in a manner orthogonal to my primary response in the discussion forum. The beginning of this rhetorical tangent was about a matter of applications of structured hostnames -- that is, hostnames in which some of a matter of structural information would be conveyed in a lexical encoding, in the hostname.

The orthogonal part of my comment -- which I was careful to denote as orthogonal in the beginning of that section of my comment -- it was towards a definition of an ontology for computer networks. The initial prototype was as follows -- edited, here, for uniqueness in regards to Individual object names.

Prefix: : <http://mis.example.com/ont/netwk#>
Ontology: <http://mis.example.com/ont/netwk>

Class: Host 

Class: Role 

Class: Location 

Class: Application 

AnotationProperty: hasHostname 
    Domain: Host 
    Range: xsd:string 

ObjectProperty: hasRole 
    Domain: Host 
    Range: Role 

ObjectProperty: hasLocation 
    Domain: Host 
    Range: Location 

ObjectProperty: hasApplication 
    Domain: Host 
    Range: Application 

Individual: Beijing 
    Types: Location 

Individual: InternetGateway 
    Types: Role 

Individual: Router 
    Types: Application

Individual: 192.168.10.1
 Facts: hasHostname "bjg_int_router"^^xsd:string,
  hasLocation Chicago,
  hasRole InternetGateway,
  hasApplication Router

Outside of the semantic context of the original discussion forum, perhaps that simple network ontology may seem peculiar for its singularity. I had developed that ontology -- there in OWL Manchester syntax -- as it illustrating how some of the qualities of a  network host may be modeled in an ontology, essentially in a manner independent of any single network hostname.

In a sense with regards to possible applications of that ontology: I had noted -- in the end of the orthogonal section of my comment, this evening -- that a network ontology could be applied within a management information system (MIS) as for support of network troubleshooting and for general information to network management staff.  I had noted, also, that it could serve to limit any of a sense of complexity that might attend with an application of software defined networking (SDN) as might be developed within a virtualization / cloud services architecture. I had also taken care to note that -- in the development of an application for that ontology -- it would not be as if to compete with Puppetlabs' Puppet framework.

Whereas, the orthogonal section to my single comment -- in that forum, this evening -- my comment had already become fairly verbose with the addition of that ad hoc ontology, and considering that the discussion forum is defined within a course about computer networking, not insomuch about software and systems design, I had not endeavored to develop any single concept of a design plan, there, beyond the simple matter of the ontology -- secondly, a short summary of possible usage cases, for application of the ontology.

Though the orthogonal section of my my comment was verbose, there, I had thought it was worth retaining in my comment, this evening, as that it would serve to illustrate an application of an ontology technology, hypothetically for and within a support system for computer network design and computer network administration -- towards something practical, as a development of an ontology about networked computing systems. Of course, now that I have developed this comment, separately here at my DSP42 web log, I am cautious mostly as to avoid if anyone may wish to interpret this article on an odd skew. That, essentially, is to why I do not often comment to any too trivial concepts, online and -- if I would comment to any trivial concept -- why I would couch it in a lot of verbosity: Namely to avert such asinine opportunism as I am too far familiar with of Internet users -- that the Internet's little sharp-shooters might simply be too bored to bother trying to play themselves out to me, in any further.

When I'd developed that ad hoc ontology in the context of the original discussion forum, that ontology had seemed to me like it could be a great concept to develop, and to share even in an orthogonal section of my comment. Outside of that context -- presently, as into the abject circus of the wide Internet -- it does not seem so worthwhile to me, to develop that ontology in any further -- but then, again perhaps some of that is a side effect of some of the momentary, but frequent, sickening idiocy in the liberal circus where is my present residence. One might not think it was a diaspora, by its outward look, "Such an area." One might wonder, however, where such a circus may intend to convey itself to, in whatsoever -- and how has such a circus become of this US?

That in such a circus as I refer to, here, self-deluding entertainment is clearly the "Going thing" among all the hipsters, I cannot imagine as if anything of any manner of a complex software design could be of any use, in such a society, in whatsoever. Clearly, they have their entertainments, the circus-goers. That must be enough, then, and I should not even bother except to leave, indefinitely.