Re: [soa-rm-ra] Views and viewpoints

[Danny Thornton <danny_thornton2@yahoo.com>]

Rex,

If I try to break down your activities and relate them
to a landing pad in the RA, my take would look like
the following:

1) Choreography & Orchestration => SOA RA
Relationships Between Services

I raised the question about Relationships Between
Services becoming the Service Composition and
Choreography model under the services view.

2) Test for accuracy & scalability => SOA RA  Testing
Models for SOAs under the Deployment of SOA view

3) Reliable messaging (e.g. messages sent and received
by appropriate parties) => SOA RA Interacting with
services model under the Service view, Testing Models
for SOAs under the Deployment of SOA view

4) Business (legally compliant sequence of message
content/payloads/triggers) => SOA RA Real World Effect
Model under Service as Business View and the
Compliance Model under the Deployment of SOA view

Of course this is a small sampling of IT aspects of a
SOA, but it is an attempt to start relating how the
implementors see things and how they can abstract up
to the SOA RA.

Danny

--- Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com> wrote:

> Hi Frank, All,
> 
> Hmmnnn. I won't quote you, but I'm using it in this
> space in real 
> world activities aimed at genuine RWE in that I'm
> using it to model, 
> then simulate and test for
> accuracy/choreography/orchestration, then 
> simulate and test at scale and if that works, it
> goes operational. I 
> don't think it makes a lot of sense to separate
> these activities.
> 
> I would rather see it framed as a continuum than a
> set of discrete 
> activities. I don't mind having different "views"
> into the process, 
> capable of testing the assumptions and requirements
> of services 
> (reliable messaging, e.g. messages sent and received
> by appropriate 
> parties) or business (e.g. correct, legally
> compliant sequence of 
> message content/payloads/triggers).
> 
> However, I don't think it is wise to imply, and
> perhaps encourage the 
> adoption of architectures, that take continuous
> developmental 
> activities aimed to be put into orchestrated
> rules-based production 
> and casts them as separate or separable, discrete,
> standalone 
> activities. If this is not the case, then please
> disregard this 
> comment.
> 
> Sorry, I haven't had the time recently to keep up. I
> hope to change 
> that soon. Or else step away entirely for a while.
> 
> Ciao,
> Rex
> 
> At 10:07 PM -0700 9/24/06, Francis McCabe wrote:
> >I feel that a key concept for the service as
> business viewpoint is 
> >the RWE. But, BPM is also important.
> >
> >It is an interesting question about what happens to
> the 
> >relationships between services.
> >
> >For the service view, I would agree that it does
> seem to mean 
> >orchestration/choreography.
> >
> >For the business view, I think it means also
> modeling any 
> >dependencies between services (a falafel delivery
> service has no 
> >business justification if the falafels have not
> been paid for.)
> >
> BPMN is being used now for modeling business
> processes. So, it would 
> be a good choice in principle. It is not what I
> would have liked to 
> have seen in this space. (Do not quote me...)
> 
> >BPMN is currently mostly about orchestration. There
> is some plan to 
> >include choreographic aspects also.
> >
> >But, it has no handle on the RWE of services.
> >
> >Frank
> >
> >On Sep 24, 2006, at 9:51 PM, Danny Thornton wrote:
> >
> >>I'm looking at the RA from a business process
> >>perspective and wondering how "Relationship
> Between
> >>Services" changes for the new views/models.  Does
> this
> >>section become the Service Composition and
> >>Choreography model under the Service view?
> >>
> >>There is also the Business Processes model under
> the
> >>Service as Business view that we currently do not
> have
> >>defined in the RA.  If I want to relate an
> >>implementation that uses Business Process Modeling
> >>Notation (BPMN) to the SOA RA, I think this would
> be
> >>extensions of the Service Composition and
> Choreography
> >>model and the Business Processes model.  Any
> thoughts?
> >>
> >>Danny
> >>
> >>--- Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>We had a discussion about formalizing a views and
> >>>viewpoints in the
> >>>face to face; and we had another discussion on
> the
> >>>matter during
> >>>today's telcon.
> >>>
> >>>In order for this approach to make sense, it is
> >>>important to have the
> >>>right number of views; too many and it becomes
> >>>unwieldy, too few and
> >>>it becomes less useful.
> >>>
> >>>  From this point of view (sic), we identified
> the
> >>>following major
> >>>views of the RA. The titles of these views are
> >>>intended to be
> >>>suggestive of the viewpoint; but are not cast in
> >>>stone.
> >>>
> >>>ServiceAsBusiness view
> >>>    "How are business needs met using SOA?" is
> the
> >>>key question.
> >>>    Models in this view would fold existing
> sections:
> >>>
> >>>    Needs and capabilities
> >>>    Participants
> >>>    Real World Effect
> >>>    Business Processes
> >>>
> >>>Service view
> >>>    "What are services, what support is needed
> and
> >>>how are they
> >>>realized?"
> >>>    Models in this view would consist of:
> >>>
> >>>    Service Description
> >>>    Service Visibility
> >>>    Interacting with services
> >>>    Service Transactions
> >>>    Service Composition and Choreography
> >>>
> >>>Security in SOA
> >>>    "How can we be assured of the safety of using
> >>>services?"
> >>>    Models in this view would include
> >>>
> >>>    Security Threats
> >>>    Security policies
> >>>    Trust model
> >>>    Security enforcement
> >>>
> >>>Deployment of SOA
> >>>    "What does it take to deploy SOAs?"
> >>>    This view would include the models:
> >>>
> >>>    Management of services
> >>>    Governance in SOA
> >>>    Compliance
> >>>    Testing models for SOAs
> >>>
> >>>Policies and Contracts
> >>>    "How do people express constraints in an SOA
> >>>context?"
> >>>    In one reading, policies and contracts
> represents
> >>>an important
> >>>infrastructural element that needs to be focused
> on.
> >>>Policies and
> >>>contracts could be modeled in each of the views
> >>>above, or in their
> >>>own view.
> >>>     Specifically, we would model
> >>>
> >>>    Policy and contract descriptions
> >>>    Policy/contract enforcement
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>We decided to open this discussion to the list
> >>>before committing it
> >>>to the WIKI. Comments would be welcome.
> >>>Frank


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com