[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Agent in Service Ecosystem View (Yes/No)?
Colleagues,
Looks like some progress was made on Action. One issue
that remains open is the notion of Agent and its use in the Business via Service
View (or Service Ecosystem View or Using SOAs View or whatever we're going to
agree to call it).
It seems that the way Agent is defined in the RA PRD1 (lines
570-571) implies that it is a non-human entity (although the definition does not
state this) and it is an entity that is required for use in electronic
communications. Personally, I don't have a problem with this,
provided we clarify that the agent is a non-human entity. Another option
would be to drop this type of agent from the Service Ecosystem View
altogether and concentrate on the core Participants and not worry about
electronic communications. In this case, we would delegate the
discussion of Agents (or Components) to the Realizing SOAs View where electronic
communications comes to play.
That said, another interpretation of Agent could be (as the
stereotype implies) a proxy for a Participant. In this case, perhaps a
Participant asks another entity to act on its behalf, independent of electronic
communication. This could be a human entity (or a non-human
entity?). This perspective is not really consistent with
the Stakeholders and Participants model currently described in Section 3.1
in which Agent is an (implied non-human) entity that ties human
Participants to the electronic communications world.
So we should decide whether to keep Agent in
the Ecosystem view and firm up its definition, i.e., is it a non-human
entity that ties Participants to electronic communication (as more or less
currently defined) or Agent as a proxy that could be another entity (human or
non-human) that acts on behalf of the Participant. And once we decide, we
need to clean up the supporting visual models and definitions of terms used
throughout the Service Ecosystem View for consistency. For example,
the definition of Intent (lines 784-787) is very specific to agent and really
should read "participant (or agent)" on all occurrences of agent. Assuming
we keep with the current definition of non-human agent.
Cheers...
- Jeff
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]