Re: [soa-rm] lack of quorum for today's RM quarterly meeting

[mpoulin@usa.com]

Hi All,

I have read about 25%-30% of Section 4 so far and have found some "minor glitches" that deserve one review (I hope). However, I have hit two topics that I certainly do not classify as minor but may be not a catastrofic as well. Let me describe them and you, please, decide how to proceed (with caution) with them.

1. Service description CANNOT contain contracts.

Though a service description may be taken as an implicit service contract as the whole, non of its part may be a contract on its own because: a) service description is one-side declaration of the service that does not require any agreements with consumers; b) SLA  (metrics and values) in the service description should not be named "SLA" because if this part is SLA what other parts of service description are, not agreements but what?

We have problem with 'Policies and Contracts" because we still do not recognise that contract may consist of policies  but not other way around; that contract is an agreement between service provider and service consumer and is not necessary public matter (as many business contracts). That is, while the content of a policy and a contract may be the same, they have different roles, usage and applicability.

I believe we have to remove contracts from the section describing service description in all places where contract is treated as a part of the service description.

2. A mess with Action.

How many different Actions a service consumer can perform o a service with one interface with one operation? I counted only two: "access the operation" and "not access the operation". This means (to me) that all other Actions discussed are service's INTERNAL actions. 

These Actions should not be visible to consumers in any cases (according to the Principles of SO) because they represent internal implementation of the service. 

Service's Actions may not have end-points (while service interface may), especially 1:1. I have a working solution where multiple versions of the interface run through the same end-point with no problems. 

The example reference to WSDL is VERY bad because it sends a message to the reader that Action= Operation; though it is not written in this way, who will read nuances?.. Interface operation is stable and immutable (as possible) while Acton is fluid and may change (appear/disappear) with every new version of service implementation. 

There are no Policies associated with Actions but exactly other way around - Actions exist to satisfy Policies; no Policy, no need for the Action. It seems that action level Policies are all Policies applied to the service execution (vs. Policies applied to the connection and interaction with the interface) because implementation of the service has to meet the Policies with its Actions.

(I have not read further)

I believe this part of the Section 4 (4.1.2) requires a serious revision.

Thank you,

- Michael  

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Thu, Apr 21, 2011 4:22 am
Subject: [soa-rm] lack of quorum for today's RM quarterly meeting

All,

 

We lacked quorum today for the RM quarterly meeting.  Topics that needed to be discussed were

-          Review of RAF work status, in particular, the ecosystem view and management

-          Way forward to the next public review

-          Interactions with other organizations

 

For those involved in the RAF work, the second item is most important.  As introduced briefly at last week’s RAF meeting, I would like to conduct a preliminary review of the entire document before we go to our next public review.  By this, I mean I would like several people to commit to a careful read of some sections (with the sum of all commitments to cover every word in the document) looking for

-          Minor glitches that can easily be fixed without controversy but which improve the overall impression that this is a carefully constructed document.  For example, this could range from simple typos and broken links to a paragraph that was carefully debated and reworded several years ago and which no longer makes as much sense as it did during the immersion of the debate.

-          Catastrophic shortcomings that are glaring enough that if publicly identified would cause us undue embarrassment and seriously detract from the future document.  Note, I want a thorough review but catastrophic will have to be proven beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.

 

I expect there are many of the first and I expect none of the second.  However, your review should look for both.  Rather than compiling an issues spreadsheet, a Word document will be uploaded that will be identified as the gold copy.  Each person can download the gold copy, make modifications as appropriate, and then rename it by appending their initials.  We will need to identify one or more people to take responsibility for incorporating changes into the gold copy that we will eventually vote for public review.

 

In addition, you may uncover other issues that will need further adjudication.  Please save these for the public review period.  I do not intend for us to do a full adjudication cycle before a public review, and significant immediate rewriting will only be done under the most extreme duress.

 

The questions on proceeding are

-          Does this email adequately set the guidelines and process for the review?

-          We will need to schedule a RM meeting before the next quarterly meeting in order to vote on a public review motion.  Do we need a meeting prior to that or can this as described be done on the email list?

 

If this is satisfactory, please let me know which sections you will commit to review.  You are encouraged to read as much of the document as possible but your most careful review should be on the sections you identify.  If possible, you should choose something which you did not yourself write; we need to ensure our writing is broadly understandable by others.

 

What did I miss?

 

Ken

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Kenneth Laskey

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305              phone: 703-983-7934

7515 Colshire Drive                                    fax:        703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508