[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Semantic Meaning of Message
With respect to the question -- If "message" is too "concrete", what is the abstraction? I think abstract concept could be Service Request, Service Response and Service Fault. So in any case service consumer will send the request to actual service to consume it and would accept a response from it, or in case of failure of service execution it would except the cause of it (fault information). So in my opinion while defining a SOA reference model we need to define what request/response/fault model one should use. Concrete concept can be Message, Event, Input/Output Parameters, Exceptions, etc. based on the communication channel one is using. Service can be defined as Request only or Request-Response, this information can be collected from the service meta model. Thanks and Regards Neeraj Vyas CA Computer Associates neeraj.vyas@ca.com -----Original Message----- From: Gregory A. Kohring [mailto:kohring@ccrl-nece.de] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 2:11 PM To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [soa-rm] Semantic Meaning of Message Hi, OK, I have looked at all three examples Duane gives and found that while none of them explicitly use the term "message", they all define concepts which have a similar semantic meaning. The RCS reference model, for example, uses the word "event" in much the same way an web service person would use the word "message". The OSI reference model is concerned about communication protocols and how they interact. It does not use the word "message", but does talk about exchanging "data" between protocols. The ITA reference model, again does not use the word "message", but does use the word "protocol" in a way which can be interpreted as a "message exchange pattern". So, while these reference models do not use the word "message", they do use terms denoting a similar concept. If "message" is too "concrete", what is the abstraction? Several posters have suggested that some form of "communication" is implicit in the definition of a service and therefore does not have to be explicitly mentioned. But doesn't this go against the idea of building a reference model? Shouldn't a reference model explicitly define all of its elements? I would argue that anything which is not an implementation detail should appear in the reference model. (How you implement the message is an implementation detail, but not the concept of the message itself.) Cheers, Greg -- ====================================================================== G.A. Kohring C&C Research Laboratories, NEC Europe Ltd. ======================================================================
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]