[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Disambiguating Action (Part I)
Actually, within the RA, we tied resource to ownership. So, the RA notion of resource is somewhat richer than the W3C's notion. On May 26, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Duane Nickull wrote: > According to our definition (lifted from W3C) anything with an ID is > a resource. Doens’t exclude much does it? > > ;-) > > > On 26/05/08 6:35 PM, "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org> wrote: > >> Yes, I would say the capability is a resource. I would also >> strongly suggest we reserve the term capability for that resource >> that the service accesses and not introduce semantic confusion by >> using the term for other purposes. One benefit of this restriction >> is we avoid having to distinguish between capability and >> functionality. Also, I think this is consistent with the idea of >> capability-based acquisition, where you buy a capability that gives >> you desired effects. >> >> I would go beyond what Michael says below and say the consumer is >> most interested in the RWEs. In the temperature conversion >> example, we get the consumer's attention by the general statement >> (and maybe associated keywords) that says temperature conversion, >> but it is the RWE that the service will return temperature in >> degrees Centigrade rather than degrees Kelvin that is important. >> >> Ken >> >> >> On May 26, 2008, at 11:50 AM, michael.poulin@uk.fid-intl.com wrote: >> >>> Here are two questions that are in line with Danny's and Frank's >>> messages: >>> >>> 1) if functionality is what is discussed and captured before >>> service inception and capability is what is captured after service >>> inception, then what the service consumer is interested in, first >>> of all? Functionality or capability realized via RWE? >>> - My answer is capability (what service can provide, and only >>> then - how). The Service Description has to answer two questions >>> (among others): what [capability] service provides and how to use >>> the service to get to this capability [functionality] >>> >>> 2) A capability in RM (and in Kens explanation) sounds like a >>> resource. In SOA eco-systems, how a consumer might even know about >>> a Capability/resource other than through the services? >>> >>> Since service interface does not necessary reflect the capability, >>> the only place left is the Service Description. If Capability and >>> service Functionality are synonyms (according to Danny), then I am >>> fine. But in this case, Capability does not exist w/o service >>> functionality IN SOA ( outside SOA, it is out of the observation >>> scope). Service functionality describes accessible Capability >>> together with particular access results RWE. >>> >>> Frank has mentioned I agree with this. But, I find it hard -- >>> using the language of WSDL >>> and RMI -- to capture the notion of business services or business >>> functionality. Exactly, Frank, you are not alone in this because >>> it is impossible to capture business behaviour, business >>> capability and functionality and, finally, business RWE in the >>> language which does not see further than technical interface >>> WSDL, RMI, IDL, COM, etc. >>> >>> - Michael >>> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Ken Laskey >> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >> McLean VA 22102-7508 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > ********************************************************************** > "Speaking only for myself" > Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc. > Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com > Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com > My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury > Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html > **********************************************************************
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]