New Issue: Rating Issue: QualityAssertionEvaluation

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi Everyone,

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR START A DISCUSSION THREAD UNTIL 
THE ISSUE IS ASSIGNED A NUMBER.

The issues coordinators will notify the list when that has occurred.

Protocol: rating

Rating spec WD04 at 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32576/BusinessQualityOfService-v1.0-spec-wd04.pdf

Artifact: spec

Type: editorial

Title: QualityAssertionEvaluation

Description:

(Note: I'll repeat this intro where it applies to the issues I bring 
up.) I have not had time to address these specs as I would have 
preferred, but as I am working through the process of diagramming the 
SOA Reference Architecture Foundation due to be released for Public 
Review in July (hopefully), I do have time to bring up a few 
crossover issues that will help align and coordinate the use of the 
RAF to develop specific, concrete solution architectures.

This Issue applies to the Rating Specification for the Performance category.

This element is the mechanism for Service Rating Entities to provide 
their evaluation for how well Service Providers fulfill the 
QualityAssertion(s) of their service(s). As with my suggestion for 
BQoS:Performance:QualityAssertion, this Evaluation element is 
something that I expect will evolve over time, and I don't have 
suggestions at this time for specific subcategories of 
QualityAssestionEvaluation. I think it would be wise to include this 
as a free text element at first. Later we may have subcategories that 
arise, but I wouldn't want to wait until we define those in order to 
get feedback from our audience on what they want to assert and how 
they want assertions evaluated.

For instance, when a conference management service asserts: "We 
deliver a high percentage of decision makers and decision 
influencers," this assertion can be evaluated by a rating service to 
say something like, "Acme Conference Management's delivery of 
decision makers and decison influencers at 35% for Conference X 
prompts our rating of poor for this assertion."

Because many Quality Assertions and Evaluations may be subjective 
(e..g. "a good time will be had by all"), the compilation of attendee 
surveys using equally subjective assessments provides a somewhat more 
objective basis for ratings services to evaluate quality assertions. 
Without the mechanisms for assertion and evaluation, these ratings 
would be more purely subjective and less valuable for potential 
service consumers.

By providing Service Providers with a BQoS: 
Performance:QualityAssertion, and Service Ratings Firms with a 
QualiftyAssertionEvaluation, I think we can begin to make better 
assessments of services.

Cheers,
Rex
-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670