[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] stakeholders summary
I think we have to beware the "everything is a service" trap. When I talked about service hosts I meant the entity responsible for ensuring that a service is made available, which can be different to the entity responsible for the service itself. The service host may be invisible to a service consumer, but is still a stakeholder in the service. Similarly, a service that offers mediation may well be a service. However, it has a stake in a different service: the ones that it is capable of mediating. Frank On Aug 24, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Ken Laskey wrote: > Frank, > > Your additions could be characterized as infrastructure. Is this > in scope for the RA? > > Besides that mediation and discovery will be accessed as services. > Other than noting some services can be considered vital > infrastructure, aren't they just services? Does the provider or > consumer of discovery really differ from the provider or consumer > of weather? > > Ken > > On Aug 24, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Francis McCabe wrote: > >> +1 >> And good for Reston! >> >> I think that the judge had it wrong. Even if the trees had no >> legal standing, people do. And the loss of trees can result in a >> loss to people in the neighborhood. I suspect that that ruling >> would not survive an appeal. >> >> BTW: I am not a lawyer, so the above is just an opinion... >> >> I think that you need to expand the scope of stakeholders a little: >> >> -- service hosts >> -- service mediators (brokers, etc.) >> -- service discovery agencies >> >> Frank >> >> On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Ken Laskey wrote: >> >>> From the ftf, we had >>> - direct participants >>> -- providers >>> -- consumers >>> - regulatory authorities >>> - non-participants (innocent bystanders/"victims") >>> >>> My initial question to the list was whether the direct >>> participants were *service* providers and *service* consumers or >>> whether there were other providers (and by extension, other >>> consumers and participants). >>> >>> From the discussion so far, I would say the ftf list covers the >>> territory and the direct participants are indeed always dealing >>> with services. However, the non-participants can include anyone >>> (and possibly anything) else, and their identification is context >>> dependent. >>> >>> An anecdote that has some relevance: >>> Last week a judge ruled against a neighborhood group who was >>> trying to block construction of the new Yankee Stadium. The >>> neighborhood group said the loss of the nearby park and trees >>> would have a devastating effects on the community. The judge >>> ruled that the trees had no legal standing. My daughter's >>> immediate response was, "They do in Reston!" Now I live in >>> Reston, one of the original planned communities, and here you >>> have to make sure your basketball backboards are the right >>> color. Notwithstanding those philosophical battles, one of the >>> differences in development in Reston is they generally try to >>> save the existing trees rather than clear cutting and just >>> plowing everything under. The result is actually quite nice. In >>> any case, context will often define the most relevant (for >>> modeling purposes) non-participatory stakeholders. >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---------------------- >>> Ken Laskey >>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >>> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >>> McLean VA 22102-7508 >>> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------- > Ken Laskey > MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 > 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 > McLean VA 22102-7508 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]