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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

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

Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] stakeholders summary

I think of the highest level of Enterprise SOA as having three

- The Service Infrastructure--The Service Infrastructure provides
functions that enable and support the use of Composite Applications in
production and the governance functions.  
- The Composite Application Lifecycle--Composite Application Lifecycle
(CAL) is the Business Process and Composite Application Modeling,
Assembly, and Deployment Environment.
- Service Development--Service Development provides activities and
functions and enabling and supporting the creation and testing of
Service Components.

The Internet SOA uses a very minor subset of the Service Infrastructure
and the CAL.  COTS Service Component Suppliers use Service Development
to create Service Components for "sale."


-----Original Message-----
From: Francis McCabe [mailto:frankmccabe@mac.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:41 PM
To: Ken Laskey
Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
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

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.


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]