[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for Better
Duane: Did you send something out before? In any case, I would be quite interested in taking a look. I wonder if there but be enough groundswell for an actual concept map TC? As a modeling tool. Frank On Dec 8, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Duane Nickull wrote: > I have an initial submission for this TC if anyone is interested. I > have kind of stopped working on it due to time constraints but would > welcome anyone else who wants to work on it. I have not yet > contributed > it to the TC but will if there is consensus. > > D > > ******************************* > Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com > Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/ > Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee > Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/ > ******************************* > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 9:28 AM > To: Duane Nickull > Cc: Metz Rebekah; Bashioum, Christopher D; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for > Better > > Perhaps we need an OASIS spec on concept maps .... > > On Dec 7, 2005, at 10:40 PM, Duane Nickull wrote: > >> I believe that the problem, with is largely due to the fact there >> is no normative reference for how to interpret concept maps. In >> this case, a service is neither an action nor an object. It is >> imply an abstract concept. >> >> >> >> D >> >> >> >> ******************************* >> Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com >> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/ >> Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee >> Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/ >> ******************************* >> >> >> >> From: Metz Rebekah [mailto:metz_rebekah@bah.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 7:18 PM >> To: Bashioum, Christopher D; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better >> >> >> >> From: Bashioum, Christopher D [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 5:06 PM >> To: Metz Rebekah; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better >> >> >> >> Rebekah, >> >> >> >> what about the potential of an act? >> >> >> >> [->] The potential of service is an offer. >> >> >> >> I have a problem with the following >> >> >> >> <Snip> >> >> The actual invocation and performance of the capability is the >> service; i.e. the action. >> >> </Snip> >> >> >> >> if I understand what you are saying here, it would imply that a >> service is not a service until it is actually performing an >> action. During the time that it is "waiting" to perform an action >> it is not a service, nor is it after it has completed the action it >> was created to do. >> >> >> >> [->] yes, you are right. That is exactly what I'm implying. The >> service isn't performing the action, the implementation of the >> action is. The service is the performance. >> >> >> >> >> >> In Duane's diagram, the service exists independent of the >> interaction. However, the interaction is what causes the real- >> world effect. >> >> >> >> I'm not sure I buy the other statement that a service is an act as >> opposed to an object. Isn't it an object (in that it exists) who's >> purpose is to perform an act? >> >> [->] So I'll ask a question in return. Let's assume the statement >> is true. If a service exists as an object that is independent of >> the capability who's purpose it is to perform; what differentiates >> the service from the capability? >> >> >> >> For that matter, is the capability what is actually providing the >> "action" and the service is the means to access that action? >> >> [->] From this perspective, what differentiates the service from >> the service access point? >> >> >> >> [->] My point is that the conceptualization of service as an object >> doesn't provide resolution to these questions. It is for this >> reason that I started examining service as a verb rather than a >> noun. From that perspective, the concepts and the relationships >> between them clarified. >> >> >> >> Rebekah >> >> >> >> From: Metz Rebekah [mailto:metz_rebekah@bah.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 4:37 PM >> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better >> >> Gosh - if this email came through in some weird format for everyone >> else, I am terribly sorry about the wacky formatting of this email >> thread. Not sure if everyone saw it as I did, but at least my >> outlook client puked =) >> >> >> >> Uh-oh. We seem to be starting to head back to the service as an >> object as opposed to an act. I still do not believe that a service >> is an 'object.' In fact, I believe that assumption has caused >> much of the difficulty in figuring out what a service actually is. >> >> >> >> What is invoked is a capability, consistent with the execution >> context and so to produce real world effects. The actual >> invocation and performance of the capability is the service; i.e. >> the action. Hence I maintain that visibility, interaction and >> effect are the interrelated concepts often (yet confusingly) >> referred to with a shorthand nomenclature of 'service.' >> >> >> >> As far as roles go, the very essence of the word service is the >> recognition that <someone> does <something> for <someone else>. I >> would agree that any other specification of this generalization >> (uh... > >> isn't that an ontology) belongs in something other than the RM. >> >> >> >> Rebekah >> >> >> >> Rebekah Metz >> >> Associate >> >> Booz Allen Hamilton >> >> Voice: (703) 377-1471 >> >> Fax: (703) 902-3457 >> >> >> >> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 4:19 PM >> To: Metz Rebekah >> Cc: Jones, Steve G; marchadr@wellsfargo.com; tmathews@lmi.org; >> mattm@adobe.com; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org; >> frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com; goran.zugic@semantion.com; >> McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca; dnickull@adobe.com; >> sallystamand@yahoo.com >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better >> >> >> >> inline >> >> >> >> On Dec 7, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Metz Rebekah wrote: >> >> >> >> Comments inline... >> >> >> >> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] >> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 3:43 PM >> >> To: Jones, Steve G >> >> Cc: marchadr@wellsfargo.com; tmathews@lmi.org; mattm@adobe.com; soa- >> rm@lists.oasis-open.org; frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com; >> goran.zugic@semantion.com; McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca; >> dnickull@adobe.com; sallystamand@yahoo.com >> >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better >> >> >> >> If I invoke a service, I am a service consumer. It does not matter >> if I invoke the service on my own initiative or am told to do it >> (through a targeted instruction or as part of a more complex set of >> instructions), I am still the service consumer. >> >> >> >> [->] Agreed. >> >> >> >> I could glibly say that if I "provide" a service, I'm a service >> provider, but I fear things are not that simple. Is the entity that >> created the service its provider, or the one who maintains it, or >> the one who hosts it, or the one who pays for it, or ...? >> >> [->] I see this being a question of 'what are the roles' versus >> 'who plays the roles'. At first pass, it seems right that we >> recognize the roles @ the RM level and leave the details of >> determining the best way to decide how to assign some entity into >> that role to the RA. >> >> >> >> I think it is easy to start naming roles but difficult to stop, and >> the roles will get more use-specific. >> >> >> >> Luckily, from the RM standpoint, we don't care. >> >> [->] or do we just delegate =) >> >> >> >> ... to someone who has no choice but to care ;-) >> >> To be used within the context of SOA, the service must be visible, >> must be able to take part in an interaction >> >> [->] Here it sounds like the service is an active player in an >> interaction. Isn't it that the service consumer and provider >> interact (as specified...? >> >> >> >> Isn't the service an active player? I invoke it to get its real >> world effect, so it certainly sounds like it does something. >> >> >> >> (as specified by the established execution context), and must >> produce a real world effect (which I assume may in some >> circumstances be null). It has been "provided" but we don't care >> how or by whom. >> >> >> >> So, in summary, there's a lot of muddy water but sometimes we can >> avoid playing in it. :-) >> >> [->] Or we can draw a circle around it and leave that to the RA =) >> >> >> >> ... at which point you initially choose RA cases that you can more >> cleanly defined. You eventually get to the tougher ones, but we >> should learn to ride a bicycle before we get a motorcycle (unless >> Duane has a different perspective) >> >> >> >> Ken >> >> [->] Rebekah >> >> >> >> Ken >> >> >> >> >> >> If I make a service available for someone to invoke (and here I >> would say that "make available" >> >> On Dec 7, 2005, at 4:47 AM, Jones, Steve G wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> To add some mud into the water... >> >> >> >> Many Bus architectures do "enrichment" of messages between consumer >> and producer, including the invocation of other services to perform >> that enrichment (e.g stock quote returns current price, enrichment >> provides the last ten days closing price). They may also do >> calculations that result in the non-connection or "empty" return >> from the service (e.g. if you call for "last five minutes trades" >> after the market has closed... its an empty set). So while I agree >> that the service consumer is key it's sometimes hard to identify >> the true consumer and the true producer of a service within a >> virtualised bus. >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca [mailto:McGregor.Wesley@tbs- >> sct.gc.ca] >> >> Sent: 06 December 2005 19:09 >> >> To: klaskey@mitre.org; marchadr@wellsfargo.com; dnickull@adobe.com; >> goran.zugic@semantion.com; mattm@adobe.com; tmathews@lmi.org; >> sallystamand@yahoo.com; frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com >> >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better >> >> >> >> I agree with Ken. >> >> >> >> The service consumer is the key concept that indicates the entity >> that invoked the service in the first place. >> >> >> >> A brokering service or service actor is merely a middle-man. >> >> >> >> Wes >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] >> >> Sent: December 6, 2005 2:02 PM >> >> To: marchadr@wellsfargo.com; dnickull@adobe.com; >> goran.zugic@semantion.com; mattm@adobe.com; tmathews@lmi.org; >> sallystamand@yahoo.com; frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com >> >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better >> >> >> >> I could argue that a broker consumes the service on someone else's >> behalf. In reality, service actor seems too nondescriptive because >> either the consumer or the provider can be thought of as an actor. >> >> >> >> Ken >> >> >> >> At 01:45 PM 12/6/2005, marchadr@wellsfargo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> I hate to stir things up a bit, but can you change the service >> consumer term to service actor? >> >> Since in the case of brokering the service actor is not consuming >> but brokering a request to another service. >> >> The broker service can be a service actor upon the service but >> might not really consume any part of the service since it is a pass >> through. >> >> >> >> But I guess this is a matter of opinion. >> >> >> >> - Dan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Ken Laskey [ mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 10:39 AM >> >> To: Duane Nickull; Goran Zugic; Matt MacKenzie; MATHEWS, Tim; Sally >> St. Amand; frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com >> >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> >> >> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better >> >> >> >> I think we need to add some words to the RM to capture this >> discussion. We cover part of this in the beginning of Section >> 3.2.1 but need to be more specific that: >> >> >> >> - a service consumer can be a human or a software agent; >> >> >> >> - a service consumer can invoke any number of services (including a >> single service in isolation) and can chain the output of some >> services to act as the input of others; >> >> >> >> - from the perspective of a given service, the occurrence of such >> chaining would not be visible; >> >> >> >> - the service consumer can be implementing a business process; >> >> >> >> - the specific of a business process do not change the basic SOA >> concepts as described in the RM; however, the specific architecture >> that one designs and implements will reflect the business process >> and make use of specific service instances that corresponds to the >> real world effects that the business process hopes to realize. >> >> >> >> Now that said, and in full appreciation that we agreed earlier that >> mechanisms which combine services (e.g. choreography, >> orchestration) are out of scope, is it sufficient for words, such >> as those suggested above, to be included somewhere within the >> current discussion or do we need to pull it out into a subsection >> on its own? As an example of the former, we tried to deal with >> loose-coupling and coarse-grained with words at the end of Section >> 2.1. >> >> >> >> Ken >> >> At 12:23 PM 12/6/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: >> >> >> >> Goran: >> >> >> >> I slightly disagree with your assertions, probably based on >> semantics. For a service to "participate" in a process, it would >> have to be aware of the process (which many will not be). A better >> way to depict this may be to state "services may be aggregated and >> used by processes" and "processes may be represented/exposed as >> services". There are really no limits to the number of layers that >> can be present. Attached is a UML CVD depicting such. >> >> >> >> A key rationale of why process is not part of SOA is that services >> cannot see process. They are not aware of whether they are being >> called as part of a process vs. as an individual service. If the >> "s" part of SOA cannot see or touch that, it cannot be part of the >> RM. >> >> >> >> The chicken and egg discussion you bring forward is a requirement >> for those building services to strongly consider the business >> process when designing their service infrastructure. Accordingly, >> it is not really part of the RM for SOA yet I agree that it is a >> very important consideration. >> >> >> >> For your messages to get to the list, you must join as a >> "applicant" rather than an "observer" as per OASIS process. >> >> >> >> Duane >> >> >> >> ******************************* >> >> Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com >> >> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/ >> >> Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee >> >> Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/ >> >> ******************************* >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Goran Zugic [ mailto:goran.zugic@semantion.com] >> >> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 8:47 PM >> >> To: Duane Nickull; Matt MacKenzie; MATHEWS, Tim; Sally St. Amand; >> frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com >> >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better >> >> >> >> Duane, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the response. Yes I would like to see the PPT. I hope >> you do not mind if I add few more thoughts related to services and >> business processes: >> >> >> >> Services participate in a business process to add some value to it. >> They can be governed and evaluated using business process metrics. >> One service can participate in many business processes and provide >> value to each of them according to the context within that process. >> As far as SOA is concerned it is as important to know what the >> service does, how it can be discovered, contacted, invoked, >> executed, etc. as it is to be able to use it within the process >> context, measure it and assess its value from the business process >> requirements point of view. SOA needs to avoid typical new >> technology chicken and egg syndrome, e.g. companies not producing >> services because there are no service friendly process definitions >> to use them and not having SOA friendly process definitions because >> there are no services to use. Services do not have to know if they >> will be involved in the process upfront, they will be contacted on >> demand according to the process script that is in effect, and they >> will be contacted, checked if available, passed the arguments, >> collected the response and according to their procedure left alone >> to wait for another call. The process execution engine however >> needs to invoke the service according to both service specific >> information and the process specific information. >> >> >> >> Having just the service specific information in a model covers only >> one part of the picture and I think it is fine as long as that >> model is a pure service model. However I find it difficult to >> understand that the SOA RM TC model is a SOA reference model when >> it does not include other concepts of SOA. Unfortunately it seems >> that we cannot get to the point where we could agree on a minimal >> set of supported SOA concepts by a model to be the SOA RM. We do >> not have to and I do not want to argue with you or anybody else in >> SOA RM TC. I am just trying to see how our works can fit together >> in a most efficient way. We obviously need more time to better >> understand each others thoughts and ideas and I strongly believe >> that a constructive respectable discussion is helpful for everybody. >> >> >> >> By the way, do you know what I am supposed to do to get my messages >> to the SOA RM list. In spite of that I am the SOA RM TC observer I >> get a faliure notice whenever I send a note to the SOA RM. >> >> >> >> Goran >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Duane Nickull >> >> To: Matt MacKenzie ; goran.zugic@semantion.com ; MATHEWS, Tim ; >> Sally St. Amand ; frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com >> >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 5:02 PM >> >> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better >> >> >> >> Goran: >> >> >> >> The service layer enables the process layer over top of it, however >> during runtime, services do not know if they are part of a process >> or being called individually (it would generally be a bad idea to >> try to maintain the overall state of a process within each service, >> although it could be done). For maximum repurposing of services, >> it would be better to have the service as a simple slave to the >> processes that may use it. >> >> >> >> Accordingly, we made a decision that BPM, Orchestration, >> choreography is not a core part of the RM for SOA. We generally >> seem to agree that many SOA implementations will include a layer of >> BPM over top. We are only addressing the SOA model, not the model >> for the underlying or overarching layers. >> >> >> >> I have a PPT that explains this in more detail if you are interested. >> >> >> >> >> >> Duane >> >> >> >> ******************************* >> >> Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com >> >> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT http://www.uncefact.org/ >> >> Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee >> >> Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/ >> >> ******************************* >> >> >> >> From: Matt MacKenzie [ mailto:mattm@adobe.com] >> >> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 12:51 PM >> >> To: goran.zugic@semantion.com; MATHEWS, Tim; Sally St. Amand; >> frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com >> >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better >> >> >> >> Process orientation is only one of multiple potential integration >> with service oriented architecture. SOA-RM is laying the >> foundation for durable architecture based on the core concept of >> service orientation. We recognize that process oriented >> architecture is a natural fit with service orientation...but so are >> things like event orientation. >> >> >> >> >> >> -matt >> >> >> >> From: goran.zugic@semantion.com [ mailto:goran.zugic@semantion.com] >> >> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 3:36 PM >> >> To: MATHEWS, Tim; Matt MacKenzie; Sally St. Amand; >> frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com >> >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better >> >> >> >> I think that SOA RM has done good job documenting well-known >> service related concepts and defining some new ones. >> >> >> >> I do not see other details besides service and service-related >> concept definitions in the current SOA RM committee draft right >> now. I look forward to seeing the completion of the model you are >> working on with the bottom-up approach. >> >> Business, business processes and collaboration aspects of business >> are important to address in the model what is not the case with the >> current content of the SOA RM committee draft. By a business >> process I mean a generic business process entity which has common >> components (activities, decisions, etc) and relationships between >> them that can be used to model a business process in any >> environment regardless of what business we support and technology >> we use. I agree with Sally that a link between business processes >> and services should be one of key requirements any SOA reference >> model should try to meet. >> >> >> >> I am not sure what SOA with services brings to business when the >> link between the business processes and services and overall >> business process semantics in the SOA context are not considered to >> be important aspects in a SOA-based reference model. >> >> >> >> Goran >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: MATHEWS, Tim [ mailto:tmathews@lmi.org] >> >> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2005 12:34 PM >> >> To: 'Matt MacKenzie', 'Sally St. Amand', frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com >> >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better "Componentization" >> >> Matt - I am not sure what point you are trying to make by this? I >> agree with your premise of a bottom up effort, as this was one of >> the operating assumptions that was made from the beginning. >> >> >> >> But, I am confident it is the business environment that is >> independent from the reference model. >> >> >> >> TM >> >> >> >> From: Matt MacKenzie [ mailto:mattm@adobe.com] >> >> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 11:58 AM >> >> To: Sally St. Amand; frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com >> >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better "Componentization" >> >> Sally, >> >> >> >> A reference model actually needs to be a bottom up effort. We >> leave the ever so popular ?top-down? approach to folks like ebSOA J >> >> >> >> We?re creating a vocabulary and general understanding of what I >> hope we can call a discipline of computer science in the future. >> This means, we need a durable reference model that is not dependent >> on the current business environment. >> >> >> >> -matt >> >> >> >> From: Sally St. Amand [ mailto:sallystamand@yahoo.com] >> >> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 10:19 AM >> >> To: frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com >> >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposal: Reorganization of SOA-RM Draft for >> Better "Componentization" >> >> >> >> Frank >> >> >> >> This is in response to your request on last week?s conference call, >> if anyone has comments speak now. I also think that the recent >> comments on clarifying sections are a reflection of my issues with >> the specification. >> >> >> >> I agree with the majority of points made/described in ver 10. My >> issues are with what is not in this draft. Based on Fig 1 the Refe! >> rence Model is guided by Reference Architectures, Concrete >> Architectures, Profile & Related Models. They in turn account for >> requirements, motivation & goals. This is creating a Reference >> Model from the bottom up. I believe a Reference Model should >> reflect a top down approach. >> >> >> >> >> >> The Reference Model needs to reflect the environment, the strategy >> and the priorities of the business/mission/collaboration. This >> will impact the construction of services. A service is a business >> task or activity that is realized through technology. The draft >> does a good job of describing how that realization happens. But it >> doesn?t provide a sufficient link between processes and services. >> The draft makes the point that the central focus of! SOA is the >> task of business function?getting something done. A business >> process is made up of tasks and activities to achieve a goal >> (getting something done). The concept of creating the service from >> the tasks and activities in a process is important. For example, >> where on the continuum of fine grained to coarse grained should a >> particular service be; this will affect interaction, reusability. >> The relationship between processes and services needs to be in the >> Reference Model. >> >> >> >> While I saw that there is a note saying the glossary is still in >> flux, since one of the objective of the Reference Model is a >> vocabulary, having less in the glossary might be a better option. >> Is semantic integration a guiding principle of SOA? >> >> >> >> With respect to conformance there needs to be business results. >> That is an SOA should provide demonstrable mission accomplishments, >> e.g. ROI, match a competitors distribution channel. SOA is not a >> technology. Conformance should provide operational accomplishments, >> these should be measurable. >> >> >> >> Sally >> >> >> >> >> >> ! >> >> >> >> >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]