[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Updated: (SOAEERP-40) i023 Rating Issue:QualityAssertionEvaluation
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/SOAEERP-40?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
William Cox updated SOAEERP-40:
-------------------------------
Component/s: spec
(was: Protocol Spec)
> 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: spec
> Reporter: Paul Yang
> Assignee: Szu Chang
>
> (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]