[OASIS Issue Tracker] Created: (SOAEERP-40) i023 Rating Issue:QualityAssertionEvaluation

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

i023	Rating Issue: QualityAssertionEvaluation
---------------------------------------------

                 Key: SOAEERP-40
                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/SOAEERP-40
             Project: OASIS Service-Oriented Architecture End-to-End Resource Planning (SOA-EERP) TC
          Issue Type: Task
          Components: Protocol Spec
            Reporter: Paul Yang 
            Assignee: William Cox


    (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

Raised against / Related drafts
    EERP-Rating revision: WD05
Justification
    N/A
Related Issues
Origin
    Rex Brooks
Owner
    Szu Chang

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira