OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [soa-rm] another possible SOA diagram (revised)


Sure Duane - I'll tackle that this evening. Stay tuned...

Joe

Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 11:34 AM
> To: SOA-RM
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] another possible SOA diagram (revised)
> 
> Joseph:
> 
> Could you take the time to give us a brief synopsis of their 
> work and how it may fit?
> 
> Duane
> 
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> > We may want to check out what OASIS Web Services Resource Framework
> > (WSRF) is doing in this regard.
> > Joe
> >
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > *From:* Greg Kohring [mailto:kohring@ccrl-nece.de]
> > *Sent:* Tue 5/24/2005 2:59 PM
> > *To:* Francis McCabe
> > *Cc:* Ken Laskey; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] another possible SOA diagram (revised)
> >
> > Fank,
> >
> > I like the idea of importing an RM for "resource". Can you 
> recommend 
> > one we can use?
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> > Francis McCabe wrote:
> > > Aaarrrgh ....
> > >
> > > This was a big debate in the Web Services Description WG 
> (WSDL 2.0).
> > > About there being a resource behind the service.
> > > This is the entirely spurious but very seductive idea of the one 
> > > true resource(tm).
> > >
> > > For *some* people, it is right and appropriate for their 
> application 
> > > to think of the one true resource represented by their 
> service. But 
> > > it is certainly not the general case; many services have the 
> > > character of filters (e.g., unit conversion services, ATM 
> machines, 
> > > encryption
> > > services) which are not primarily concerned with their 
> own resources.
> > > Other services are all about *combining* resources e.g., 
> selling and 
> > > delivering books, subscription and notification services.
> > >
> > > From other perspectives (e.g., service management, policy 
> > > enforcement, deployment, etc. etc.), the service itself *is* a 
> > > resource that has an existence independent of other 
> resources it manipulates.
> > > For example, resources are *things* that can be bought; and a 
> > > service certainly meets that criteria.
> > >
> > > Personally, I believe that all of this stuff on resources 
> does not 
> > > belong in a SOA RM; the reason: resources have their own modeling 
> > > and we can simply layer on top of the concept.
> > >
> > > Frank
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 23, 2005, at 3:28 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
> > >
> > >> Greg - see below
> > >>
> > >> At 02:33 PM 5/23/2005, Greg Kohring wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Sorry, but this diagram has a few problems.
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) A "Service Interface" is a concrete representation 
> of some of 
> > >>> the constraints detailed in the contract; i.e., it is 
> too concrete 
> > >>> for being mentioned so prominently in a reference model.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> The service interface is more a representation of the data model 
> > >> than a constraint, and I am referring to an unambiguous 
> > >> prescription of the interface and not the implementing code. A 
> > >> such, I'd see it no more concrete than the specification 
> of a policy.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> 2) It is the service that is the resource, not the service
> > description.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> It has been a while since I read WSA, so my apologies if 
> my use of 
> > >> the terms is different. I see the resource as being 
> something that 
> > >> provides something I need, whether data or processing. I see the 
> > >> service as a means to gain access to the resource but 
> the resource 
> > >> exists independent of the service. Many services may access the 
> > >> same resource, e.g. for different guaranteed quality of service.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> While it is certainly true that every service is a 
> resource, the 
> > >>> converse is not true.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Again, this may go against past WSA work but I do not consider a 
> > >> service to be a resource. It is one means of accessing a 
> resource.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> You might even define an SOA is an architecture in which all 
> > >>> resources are either themselves services or can only be 
> accessed 
> > >>> through services (i.e., they are part of the service's data 
> > >>> model). Therefore, if your architecture only consists 
> of services, 
> > >>> you need not mention resources explicitly.
> > >>>
> > >>> -- Greg
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Ken Laskey wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> The resource is the implementation that in many cases 
> was created 
> > >>>> to satisfy needs outside the SOA and only becomes part 
> of a SOA 
> > >>>> in the same way that any software package becomes part of your 
> > >>>> computer. Opacity says you know there is a resource 
> but the only 
> > >>>> thing you know about it is what is exposed through the service 
> > >>>> description.
> > >>>> Attached is a very quick attempt to include in Duane's 
> last diagram.
> > >>>> Ken
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On May 23, 2005, at 9:18 AM, Christopher Bashioum wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> OK - that makes sense. In fact, I remember a book on SOA 
> > >>>>> patterns that talks about this (forgot the title, but 
> the author 
> > >>>>> is Paul Monday).
> > >>>>> In his
> > >>>>> view, what you are referring to as a service he would 
> refer to 
> > >>>>> as an architecture adapter. I.e., the implementation 
> (resource) 
> > >>>>> is done in a particular architural style. In order to 
> adapt that 
> > >>>>> implementation to the SOA architectural style one would us an 
> > >>>>> architecture adapter.
> > >>>>> (at least
> > >>>>> that's what I got from his book - I may have misunderstood).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So ... A second question for you - do you think we 
> need to add a 
> > >>>>> resource box to the diagram that Duane sent out? If so, what 
> > >>>>> would be the relationship between the resource and 
> the service?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> > >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:11 AM
> > >>>>> To: Christopher Bashioum
> > >>>>> Cc: 'SOA-RM'
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] another possible SOA diagram (revised)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The resource is the real thing out there that provides a 
> > >>>>> capability -- in the 07 draft, there is a discussion of data 
> > >>>>> resources vs.
> > >>>>> processing
> > >>>>> resources. In general, a resource does not have to be 
> service- 
> > >>>>> enabled.
> > >>>>> However for SOA, the resource must have (we can continue to 
> > >>>>> debate
> > >>>>> this) a service interface that is one of the things published
> > through
> > >>>>> the service description, and that service interface 
> is how you 
> > >>>>> connect the resource to the underlying service 
> infrastructure. 
> > >>>>> Additionally, the service infrastructure has to 
> provide certain 
> > >>>>> TBD capabilities and likely overlaps but is not 
> necessarily the 
> > >>>>> same as what is often termed an ESB bus.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Ken
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On May 23, 2005, at 8:53 AM, Christopher Bashioum wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ken,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Intuitively, I like this one. One question: how is 
> the resource 
> > >>>>>> different than the service? Also, for the TC to use, 
> we may be 
> > >>>>>> able to identify the essential elements with a * and 
> then the 
> > >>>>>> other optional elements to show where they fit (for 
> example, I 
> > >>>>>> see basic logging as non- essential, but this diagram shows 
> > >>>>>> where it fits).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The diagram may not show up in the actual RM doc, 
> but it may be 
> > >>>>>> useful for us as a conceptual model.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 12:43 AM
> > >>>>>> To: 'SOA-RM'
> > >>>>>> Subject: [soa-rm] another possible SOA diagram (revised)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I played with the ideas in the sketch a bit more. As 
> noted in 
> > >>>>>> the previous email:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I would not necessarily advocate it being used 
> instead of the 
> > >>>>>> one Duane drew but given I had it, I thought I'd 
> pass it around 
> > >>>>>> for comments.
> > >>>>>> The 3D presentation may make it look too concrete but I was 
> > >>>>>> looking for a way to show there was something SOA I was 
> > >>>>>> building services
> > on and
> > >>>>>> there could be any number of services. Note a 
> resource could be 
> > >>>>>> a registry but even that would be exposed through 
> services and 
> > >>>>>> have metadata.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ken
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>> ---- -
> > >>>>> ------------------
> > >>>>> Ken Laskey
> > >>>>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
> > >>>>> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> >
> >
> 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]