Re: [s-ramp] Feedback S-RAMP Foundation Working Draft 01 (s-ramp-foundation-v1.0-wd01.docx)

[Randall Hauch <rhauch@redhat.com>]

On Jan 30, 2011, at 7:05 AM, Linda Terlouw wrote:

> - I like the distinction between the SOA model and the service implementation model. However, the word "implementation" is a bit confusing as people can also interpret this as the internal implementation of the services (internal design of the service). Of course this is not what is meant. Maybe we should alter this term (e.g. service technical specification). Or we could give a better explanation on what we do and do not mean with the term "implementation".

I agree that the term "implementation" is bit loaded. Two alternatives immediately come to my mind:

1) Provider
2) Instance

The SOA Ontology (current draft 3.1) avoids picking a term for this, and instead define a fairly generic "providedBy" relationships from a Service to another element. Section 2.3.3 of the S-RAMP Foundation Working Draft 01 uses the "instance" terminology, both in the text and in the model.

Where either of these terms previously considered, and if not then what are the thoughts around them?

Best regards,

Randall Hauch
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat