[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Created: (SOAEERP-40) i023 Rating Issue:QualityAssertionEvaluation
i023 Rating Issue: QualityAssertionEvaluation --------------------------------------------- Key: SOAEERP-40 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/SOAEERP-40 Project: OASIS Service-Oriented Architecture End-to-End Resource Planning (SOA-EERP) TC Issue Type: Task Components: Protocol Spec Reporter: Paul Yang Assignee: William Cox (Note: I'll repeat this intro where it applies to the issues I bring up.) I have not had time to address these specs as I would have preferred, but as I am working through the process of diagramming the SOA Reference Architecture Foundation due to be released for Public Review in July (hopefully), I do have time to bring up a few crossover issues that will help align and coordinate the use of the RAF to develop specific, concrete solution architectures. This Issue applies to the Rating Specification for the Performance category. This element is the mechanism for Service Rating Entities to provide their evaluation for how well Service Providers fulfill the QualityAssertion(s) of their service(s). As with my suggestion for BQoS:Performance:QualityAssertion, this Evaluation element is something that I expect will evolve over time, and I don't have suggestions at this time for specific subcategories of QualityAssestionEvaluation. I think it would be wise to include this as a free text element at first. Later we may have subcategories that arise, but I wouldn't want to wait until we define those in order to get feedback from our audience on what they want to assert and how they want assertions evaluated. For instance, when a conference management service asserts: "We deliver a high percentage of decision makers and decision influencers," this assertion can be evaluated by a rating service to say something like, "Acme Conference Management's delivery of decision makers and decison influencers at 35% for Conference X prompts our rating of poor for this assertion." Because many Quality Assertions and Evaluations may be subjective (e..g. "a good time will be had by all"), the compilation of attendee surveys using equally subjective assessments provides a somewhat more objective basis for ratings services to evaluate quality assertions. Without the mechanisms for assertion and evaluation, these ratings would be more purely subjective and less valuable for potential service consumers. By providing Service Providers with a BQoS: Performance:QualityAssertion, and Service Ratings Firms with a QualiftyAssertionEvaluation, I think we can begin to make better assessments of services. Cheers, Rex Raised against / Related drafts EERP-Rating revision: WD05 Justification N/A Related Issues Origin Rex Brooks Owner Szu Chang -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]