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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebsoa message

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


Subject: RE: [ebsoa] SOA Collaboration Semantics


Goran,
 
Please keep in mind that you are working in an open process where people (like myself) provide feedback on submitted content, even if they have not read the entire document. Anyone in this process has the right to comment on any part of materials submitted before reading them in their entirety. I simply looked at a figure that was labeled to be a "high-level information model" for SOA, and noted the absence of what I believe (especially based on the work that is being done in the SOA-RM TC) is a fundamental piece. I am not required by OASIS policy to continue reading the entire document at that point before I provide feedback on my observation to a TC.
 
I suggest that if you cannot donate something to OASIS and then abide by OASIS rules in evolving your donation, that you rescind it - and immediately.
 
Joe

 

From: Goran Zugic [mailto:goran.zugic@semantion.com]
Sent: Sat 10/29/2005 8:09 PM
To: Chiusano Joseph; ebSOA OASIS TC
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] SOA Collaboration Semantics

Joe,

 

This is how I view professionalism in this kind of communication:

 

1. Do not criticize the content until you have not fully read it.

 

2. When you criticize something always state your standpoint. Do not come up with a negative critique before you explain your position and have fully understood the other side's position. In order to achieve this, step one is a prerequisite. As you know, our solution is explained in three publicly available documents. You said you will clarify your viewpoints, I am  looking forward to seeing them whenever  they are ready.

 

3. Whenever you ask for an answer, or try to find an answer  with the help of others, be patient with the discussions until all positions are clear. Do not rush with critiques such as:  "... I am still highly skeptical of their usefulness and value..." or "... I frankly don't see its value to this TC or standards work in general..." or "...it appears to me that the SOA IM was originally written as a process IM, and some text regarding "service" was added in as an afterthought ...". Arbitrary critiques are not hard to produce, in comparison to years of hard work and years of professional experience;  both of which were needed to produce the specification framework that the ebSOA TC is working on right now.

 

When I joined the ebSOA TC back in March of this year, the only ebSOA TC architectural specification document (dated August 2004) that was present, was a high level abstract draft that you also contributed to. You left this in its beginning stage, and I have not seen any further contributions since. Coneveniently you reappeared as soon as the FERA-based SOA submission was completed, and your intentions were questionable at best. What I want to know, is wether you would like to help the process, or hindered it like you have been doing thus far.     

 

The way I see this, is that I will not waste my time with the chicken and egg scenario with endless discussions about SOA, services, service orchestration, choreography, and many others. However, we can further our discussions, as long as constructive exchanges based on our clearly stated positions, and most importantly, the respect for each others work are present. Counter-productive arguements without merit, which you have displayed, serve as a barrier to our communication.  

 

Assuming that we will have more positive and more constructive communication in the near future, I look forward to hearing from you about your position, views and outlooks, on SOA and all aspects surrounding it. 

 

Goran

 

 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:02 PM
Subject: RE: [ebsoa] SOA Collaboration Semantics

Goran,
 
I don't believe it is very professional for you to assume what I am interested in regarding SOA. In fact, your assumption was quite innaccurate.
 
I will clarify that I am interested in the terminology, the purpose, the business process improvements it can provide, and many other aspects.
 
I thank you in advance for updating your high-level information model to accurately reflect your stated intent for these specifications. I am still highly skeptical of their usefulness and value, but time and market will tell.
 
Joe
 
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
 
700 13th St. NW
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514 
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 


From: goran.zugic@semantion.com [mailto:goran.zugic@semantion.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 4:58 PM
To: Chiusano Joseph; Goran Zugic; ebSOA OASIS TC
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] SOA Collaboration Semantics

Joe,
 
Thank you for being so frank in sharing your opinion. Looks like you are interested in terminology of the SOA, not in the purpose of it, or in the business process improvements that it can provide. The proposed framework deals with ontology, information models, run time architecture and semantics for SOA and its implementations, the missing glue areas in current standard specifications. When you read the proposed documents in more details, you will get answers to all your questions.
 
Fore example, Service entity is explicitly defined in SOA IM. Unfortunately your conclusions have been made mostly based on the only figure in the SOA IM document, "Figure 1 - SOA Information Model (High Level)", yes it says "High Level", which does not graphically include Service entity. If you really read the document you would easily find out that the Service entity is defined in SOA IM and that it is one of the the core SOA IM entities used to support key business process entities: activities, decisions and events. However, in our next release, we will graphically add, for example, the Service entity to the SOA IM high-level figure to help you and similar readers whose focus is on the pictures not the content to better understand our specs and solution.
 
Few more words about reference and run-time architecture. As I mentioned in my previous note FERA reference architecture has been created based on many collaborative (business) process use cases and installations. The run-time SOA is based on it and SOA Collaboration Semantics defines all its architectural components' protocols, interfaces and methods. That is how you provide vendors with specs that can be used to develop plugable architectural components in a fully interoperable way. How you are going to implement it, what technology will be used and everything else that comes with it is completely independent of this specs.
 
Analogy with sports. The formalism applied to the abstract  definition of the ball (service) out of the game (context)  does not make too much sense.  We can debate if the ball should be defined as "soccer ball" or "football" forever, and no-one would win that debate. It does not matter if we follow the ontology of the game. Players will say "pass me the ball", or "share that orange, you hog", and everyone else will understand that request given the game being played at the moment.
Smart people defined the purpose of services and SOA long time ago but nobody has provided the way how the entire SOA should work. We are the first group that has created the framework for this kind of the SOA specs. More and more people and organizations and even some new OASIS TCs starting to realize the importance of the SOA IM and SOA semantics which are first introduced by us as the key elements for the complete support for business process modeling, deployment and execution in SOA.
Goran
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:04 AM
To: 'Goran Zugic', 'ebSOA OASIS TC'
Subject: RE: [ebsoa] SOA Collaboration Semantics

Please see comments below, marked with [JMC].
 
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
 
700 13th St. NW
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514 
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 


From: Goran Zugic [mailto:goran.zugic@semantion.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:58 PM
To: Chiusano Joseph; ebSOA OASIS TC
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] SOA Collaboration Semantics

Joe,
 
Thanks for your feedback. These are my answers:
 
- The run-time architecture is based on analysis of over 130 collaborative installations. It is based on FERA which classifies and categorizes capabilities required to support all of the use cases analyzed. The components are actually reference functional modules that have specified functions and interfaces. Our run time SOA is based on that model and each component has a well defined role and interface to communicate with other components to support the collaborative process.
 
[JMC] Thank you. The information you provided above is valuable to understand the background and history of the run-time architecture. I should also emphasize that my original question was: "Since the run-time architecture is greatly concrete, is it intended that products be based on it? Is it intended for exemplary purposes? Other? ".  
 
- SOA IM is based on the process definition in FERA that requires certain level of specificity of the process detail. True, FERA does not require QoS details, but it provides a robust security policy model.  
 
[JMC] It seems to me that if the security policy model is robust as you say, it would be reflected in the SOA IM hierarchy shown in Figure 1 of the SOA IM document. Why would it not be (sorry, I don't understand).
 
 The IM is derived from FERA process characteristics and there are additional data elements required for the run time semantics that are used for quality, escalation, monitoring and other administrative aspects of run time execution. The SOA IM contains sufficient level of detail to extract the semantics and to execute it over the run time SOA. True it is a process based model, and that is intentional, because that maintains the fidelity of business requirements throughout the entire deployment. In this framework, it is less important to define what is a service then to satisfy all basic principles of SOA.  
 
[JMC] How can one "satisfy all basic principles of SOA" if the most fundamental concept of SOA - "service" - is not defined?
 
That is why it is an SOA IM.  
 
[JMC] Given that "Service" does not appear in the IM hierarchy, I would asser that it is *not* a SOA IM, and that portraying it as such is - a best - a huge stretch.
 
However, the Service entity is defined in Section 2.1.35 in SOA IM document.  
 
[JMC] Great - why not put it in the IM hierarchy?
 
Hence, you see activities, decisions, events, roles, rules and metrics as key entities. A service can therefore be any activity, or a decision that has defined inputs and outputs, conditions for its invocation, metrics for its performance, rules for its execution, matrix with the input processing logic and few other entities in the model.  
 
[JMC] Great - then that should be reflected in the IM hierarchy, with "Service" being related to all of these, IMHO.
 
Hence the entire model in fact defines services, their orchestration,  
 
[JMC] Not all SOA instances involve orchestration - that is a feature (aspect) that is determined according to business need. So building in orchestration "natively", IMHO, makes this an orchestration IM (or a process IM), not a SOA IM.
 
their business rules and other aspects required for SOA definition, deployment, maintenance and continuous operational support. The entire IM and the architecture is an SOA based on the principles of service orientation.  
 
[JMC] I believe that it cannot be this, since "Service" is not even included in the IM hierarchy, much less as a central focus.
 
Just like in the sport of soccer nothing is really called soccer, but everything else defines the game, players, referees, goals, spectators, ball, pitch, etc.
 
[JMC] Yes, but there are fundamental components you mentioned, such as a soccer ball. How can this be SOA (soccer) without depicting a soccer ball (Service)?
 
I am not implying anything more than I am saying here, but it appears to me that the SOA IM was originally written as a process IM, and some text regarding "service" was added in as an afterthought (just my opinion).
 
Given its current state, I frankly don't see its value to this TC or standards work in general.
 
Thanks,
Joe
 
Regards,
Goran
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: [ebsoa] SOA Collaboration Semantics

Goran,
 
Thanks for sending these documents - it's clear that a great deal of work has gone into them.
 
I have a few questions, please:
 
Run-Time SOA: I get the notion of a reference architecture as shown in Figure 1 on p.3. Having said that, I would expect that any run-time (concrete) architecture that is depicted as being based on the reference architecture is merely for exemplary purposes, yet the run-time architecture is simply presented without any indication of its purpose. Since the run-time architecture is greatly concrete, is it intended that products be based on it? Is it intended for exemplary purposes? Other?
 
SOA Information Model: Though this is called a "SOA" information model, this document looks more to me like a "Process Information Model" that is actually independent of SOA (that is, I did not see anything that restricted it to SOA). In fact, in order to call something a "SOA" information model, I would assert that there are several other areas that would need to be incorporated beyond processes - e.g. security, policy, QoS, etc. Even considering the process perspective, there is nothing that I see in this information model that speaks distinctly to a service-oriented paradigm - in fact, figure 1 (p.24) does not even have a "Service" concept. What is the intended use of this document for ebSOA?
 
Thanks,
Joe
 
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
 
700 13th St. NW
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514 
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 


From: Goran Zugic [mailto:goran.zugic@semantion.com]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 2:21 AM
To: 'ebSOA OASIS TC'
Subject: [ebsoa] SOA Collaboration Semantics

Hello ebSOA TC,

 

Semantion is pleased to announce the completion of its FERA-based SOA contribution to ebSOA TC.

 

The SOA Collaboration Semantics document

 

http://www.semantion.com/specs/soa/SOA_CS_V0.1.doc

 

contains FERA-based SOA semantics specification that together with two previously submitted documents, Run-time SOA and SOA Information Model, represent Semantion's SOA specification framework.

 

The new releases of the Run-time SOA document and the SOA Information Model  document are available at

 

http://www.semantion.com/specs/soa/SOA_IM_V0.2.doc

 

http://www.semantion.com/specs/soa/Run-time_SOA_V0.2.doc

 

These documents should be reviewed in the following order:

 

- Run-time SOA

- SOA Information Model

- SOA Collaboration Semantics

 

Please let me know if you have any questions or need more information regarding the submitted documents.

 

Regards,
Goran Zugic
Chief Architect
Semantion Inc.
416-995-7532


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