[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Service non-definition
Michael - I think we are all on the same track Peter – I think we have lots of words and close to a common meaning. The challenge is to get some subset of the former to express the latter. Do you see any remaining disconnects or is it primarily down to wording? Ken From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] I think, Ken that Boris is on the more useful and suitable way of expressing the definition of service. Please, see my last response to him. Also, I do like your statement where you say that the service is both the action and the thing (that performs this action). What Peter said ->>a ‘service’ can be variously understood as ‘some result delivered’ as well as the ‘process’ or indeed the abstract ‘thing’ involved in delivering that result<< - in not even close to the meaning of the SOA service I used to use for the last several years. Service, before delivering the result, has to execute the capability and obtain this result. That is, service (from inside-out view) is the thing that works for the result. However, in the outside/in view, service is a provider of the result and, in such abstraction, it is irrelevant whether the service is an entity/thing or action or whatever else - consumer does not care (at a glance). However, a consumer cares very much what is the service because it is the consumer who wants to establish business trust with the service before dealing with it. Nobody can trust an abstract result or action. Our definition of service has to reflect both inside-out and outside-in aspects of the service, IMO. - Michael -----Original Message----- Michael, Your comment goes to one piece of the non-definition, and that piece is meant to tie in one general idea of service, not the combination access mechanism and capability which is mostly our focus. Peter is trying to split hairs and tie together all the noun/verb/adjective uses of service, and is looking for a way to indicate context without using the S word. Look at his non-definition again and see what you would suggest modifying with that as a proposed way of getting across our intended ideas. As I noted in a previous email, we need to be sure what points we want to make and distract neither ourselves or our readers when we express those ideas. Ken --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Kenneth Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] I cannot accept this definition, Peter, sorry. Why would not we use Ken's expression directly? Here is why I dislike the definition below: 1) service and result are too much different things; service delivers result like any function, but it is not a result itself. Service=result is terribly confusing to me! 2) I do not accept that a service is always a process. I am involved now in a a wide discussion about ACM vs. BPM - adaptive case management vs. process management - and the common agreement that we may not call 'process' everything we do because process is only structured set of actions. Also, both process and actions are 'doing' while I insist on that a service is a thing, which can 'do'. Going further into Business SOA, service is a business unit providing business functionality and delivering the results (and RWE). - Michael -----Original Message----- How does this sound: “A ‘service’ can be variously understood as ‘some result delivered’ as well as the ‘process’ or indeed the abstract ‘thing’ involved in delivering that result. Where the term service is used in this document, it is in the common sense way which may cover any or all of these concepts. Where one or other explicit senses it intended, and in order to avoid possible ambiguity, more explicit terms (including Real World Effect, Service Activity, Capability and System) will be used in line with the definitions in the Reference Model.” I would propose adding this to the end of the second para of section 1.2: Does this help? Peter F Brown Independent Consultant Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies Blog pensivepeter.wordpress.com LinkedIn www.linkedin.com/in/pensivepeter Twitter @pensivepeter P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA Tel: +1.310.694.2278 Tel: +1.310.694.2278 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]