[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] RE: List of terms in section 3
Oh, Agreed on the first two points. Shareable and Shared state, as defined by Michael violate
service encapsulation. With the exception of the conversation service and consumer
should NEVER have a shareable entity. The problem here is twofold: ·
Either a consumer relies on its knowledge of shared stated (not
expressed in the interface), which makes service evolution questionable ·
Service is explicitly implemented as statefull which makes
implementation more complex and reduces scalability Both are extremely bad. The only shareable state that I can
accept is shared knowledge of Interface, data definitions, etc. When it comes to RWE, I will disagree with Michael again.
Internal change of consumer state is specific to how consumer interpret service
execution results. This is so specific to consumer. Agreed with Peter on this From: Peter F Brown
[mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Michael, some quick responses to your points. Capability – I
see your point. If we accept that RWE is ‘subjective’ to the particular
stakeholder(s) concerned, then actual RWE should be orthogonal to what (shared
state changes) a capability actually delivers. A capability nonetheless
delivers a RWE, whether it is intended/asked for/desired or not. A capability
is used (= intention) in order “to realize one of more RWE’s” (from the RM).
Subtle difference we may need to work on: I want to be careful that we don’t
contradict the RM definition. I still don’t buy into your notion that somehow a
service result can be slipped into the private state of an actor without it
being part of the RWE. Permission –
fair point. We were trying (too hard) from a very early stage (<2008) to
work with a duality of constraints, permission and obligation. I’d be happy to not
formally define either. RWE –
still disagree with you! ;-) Your approach over-complicates the whole story,
with private and public RWE’s, whatever they are (I’m still not clear) and,
frankly, your diagram only makes the issue more complicated and does notadvance
us to a clear definition. Our approach is to separate objective and subjective
PoV’s: state changes are generally objective and measurable while an RWE is in
the eye of the beholder – my RWE is not necessarily your RWE (your suntan, my
sunburn – same sun, same exposure – sorry, but I’m just back off holidays),
experienced mileage will vary. That is why we introduced the words ‘pertinent’,
‘relevant to’, ‘experienced by’ and ‘specific stakeholders’. Shareable and Shared State – I never liked the introduction of shareable as a defined
concept. I voted for and would again vote for keeping only private and shared
state, stating that shared state is the part of the ‘shareable’ or public state
that is actually (and not just potentially) shared. See our mail exchange of 31
Jan. Service – at
the meeting of 19 Jan, we agreed to go with a ‘definition’ (not formally
defined, but used in the text) that states that a service is ‘a realisation of
business functionality accessible through defined interfaces’ Regards, Peter From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] Folks, I have very limited access
to e-mail today. So, I hope to discuss my comments on the definition in the
meeting today. Here are my belate comments : Also, a few days ago I
have sent a message to Ken with a small diagram that illustrates my proposal on
the definition of RWE (that would include all chnages in the state of the
ecosystem, not only public ones). You will see how this affects other
definitions below.
- Michael -----Original Message----- Ken, request that we add an
agenda item for tomorrow’s TC: the finalization of the list of terms for
definition in Section 3. Since sending out the email below, I have not
received any input from the TC on amending the list of what will be formally
defined, what will be dropped, and what will be used informally. Would
like to formally vote on this tomorrow so we can close it out. This is important, as
Peter and I would like to start the actual writing. We have done some
editing, but need to get a solid draft of Section 3 written up and delivered to
the TC. This is a necessary step for that to occur. I will try to make the
TC call tomorrow, but may miss it or be late due to work constraints.
Peter is planning on making the first part of the TC call, but will have to
leave early for a client call, so we would like to have this as an early agenda
item if possible. Thanks! From: Bashioum, Christopher D At our last conf call, we
proposed a list of terms that Section 3 will define. Attached is a
spreadsheet that contains that list. The spreadsheet identifies
terms that will be formally defined (identified with “DEFINITION” in the first
column), terms that will not be used (DELETE) and terms that will *not*
be formally defined but will be used and will rely on the reader’s
understanding of the english language (USE INFORMALLY). I have
sorted the spreadsheet accordingly. For the terms that will be
formally defined, an initial definition is given in the Definition
column. For those terms that will be either deleted or used informally,
some amplifying text is in the Notes 1 and Notes 2 columns. So ... first item is to
come to agreement on what will be formally defined in section 3.
If you think that we missed some terms, or that we have included terms that
should not be formally defined, please reply as such. Would like to come
to consensus on this by next conference call. Definitions we will debate
and refine after coming to agreement on the list of terms. Michael P, your input has
been incorporated in this list – except that i have interpreted your “delete”
as “Don’t formally define, just use as normal english language in the text”. = --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]