Re: [soa-rm-ra] Service participants

[Danny Thornton <danny_thornton2@yahoo.com>]

I've added my comments below.  Let us know when the
tags get to be too annoying to deal with.

<original>
The function of a system based on Service Oriented
Architecture is to facilitate the interaction between
participants; where this interaction is characterized
as being in terms of providing services and consuming
services.
</original>
<comment>
A running thought I had is that this is not just for
the benefit of the consumer or else the provider would
have no motivation to be a participant.
</comment>
<suggestion>
... where this interaction is characterized as being
in terms of providing services and consuming services
to realize mutually desirable real world effects.
</suggestion>

<danny comment>
agree
</danny comment>

<original>

A participant is a human, corporation or non-human
agent ...

</original>
<comment>
How about collections of human and non-human entities,
e.g. a car being driven on a highway or a claimant
dealing with an insurance company?  Not sure of the
suggested words that follow, but something along these
lines.
</comment>
<suggestion>
A participant is an individual (either human or
non-human functioning entity) or a group of
individuals (where the group in certain contexts may
be considered an aggregate individual) ...
</suggestion>

<danny comment>
agree
</danny comment>



<original>
The reason for this is twofold: an extremely common
mode of interaction is where a provider participant
offers some functionality as a service and a consumer
participant uses that service to achieve one of his or
her goals.
</original>
<comment>
It says "twofold" but I don't see a second.
</comment>

<danny comment>
twofold refers to producer and consumer
</danny comment>


<original>
In normal parlance, the service provider commonly
refers to either the ultimate owner of the capability
that is offered or at least an agent acting as proxy
for the owner.
</original>
<suggestion>
Consider adding the following:  For example, an
individual may own a simulation program that
encompasses a capability but will enter into an
agreement with another individual (the proxy) to
provide SOA access to that capability.
</suggestion>

<danny comment>
I don't see the suggestion following the description
for service provider.  "Simulation program" lost me.
</danny comment>


<original>
A service consumer is a participant that actively
engages with a service...
</original>
<suggestion>
For consistency with RM:  A service consumer is a
participant that interacts with a service...
</suggestion>

<danny comment>
"actively engages" provides more meaning than
"interacts".  When would the start of a
consumer/producer interaction not be due to the active
engagement on the part of the consumer?
</danny comment>


<original>
However, the service consumer normally refers to the
ultimate beneficiary of the use of a service's
capabilities.
</original>
<comment>
This gets back to the comment above about mutual
benefit.  The suggestion changes the message but I
believe is still accurate.
</comment>
<suggestion>
However, the service consumer normally refers to the
initiator of the use of a service's capabilities.
</suggestion>

<danny comment>
If "actively engaged" stayed the same then "ultimate
beneficiary" provides additional meaning.
</danny comment>

<original>
Apart from the mechanical aspects governing how
participants interact with and offer services, it is
important to capture the relationships between
participants that are mediated by services. At its
most basic, this refers to the use of services to
achieve a real world effect: a service is used by a
service consumer in order to achieve a change in the
real world that meets a desired goal.
</orginal>
<comment>
Mutual benefit again.  
</comment>
<suggestion>
a service is provided by a provider and used by a
service consumer in order to achieve a change in the
real world that meets a desired goal.
</suggestion>

<danny comment>
Either description reads ok to me.
</danny comment>


<original>
A role is an identified relationship between a
stakeholder and a social structure that defines the
...
</original>
<comment>
Attributes effectively (and sometimes dynamically)
define a "role" even if the role doesn't have a name
and has never been previously defined.  I don't
necessarily want to get into a RBAC vs. ABAC
discussion, but I think we need to capture this
thought and not have this be read as assuming only
predefined or static roles.
</comment>

<danny comment>
agree
</danny comment>


<original>
However, corporations, governments and even society,
are abstractions: a government is not a person that
can perform actions -- only people can actually do
things. When a corporation performs an action it is
always the case that some person or persons execute
some action acting on behalf of the corporation.
</original>
<comment>
I agree in principle but what about nonhuman agents? 
If I set up faulty logic and something results that I
hadn't intended and possibly didn't want to occur, did
I actually "do" it or just create the conditions under
which it happened?  (I don't even want to get into the
future of machine intelligence.)  I realize this is
often a matter of law and liability, but I don't think
we can say -- only people can actually do things.
</comment>

<danny comment>
Agree.  The machines one hundred years from now will
love us for considering them. :)
</danny comment>


<original>
This means that, when the persons acts appropriately,
it is as though the other person or entity performs
the action. In the case of non-human entities, the
only way in which they can perform actions is via the
empowerment of people.
</original>
<suggestion>
Would it be helpful between the two sentences to add: 
An example of this is granting someone a power of
attorney.  
</suggestion>

<danny comment>
Agree with example.
<suggestion>
Expand "empowerment of people" to something like
"empowerment of an authorative entity."  This goes
back to Ken's last comment.
</suggestion>   
</danny comment>

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