| I would point you to the models and discussion in section 4.1.2.2.3. In summary, the execution context defines the environment for the interaction and the interaction log captures the specifics of what occurs.
The fact that service preparation occurs would be a prerequisite for establishing an execution context (otherwise you don't have anything to interact), the service engagement is akin to the execution context, and the service performance is akin to the interaction.
I think the akins will converge to same-as when we tease out the details, but I haven't had the time to really wrestle with the details.
I think an activity being a collection of actions is useful but that needs to be related to the process model and what goes into the interaction log.
As far as capability is concerned, I think we should avoid any lower level and stick with what we have in the RM. I believe we can adequately talk about message exchange without getting into the details of what the capability does with the messages.
Ken On Sep 11, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Rex Brooks wrote: Hi Guys, If we view the Execution Context as being comprised of the three phases that Dave's diagram embodies, but has not yet developed to the point that those phases have been clearly named and defined; Service Preparation [Capability, ServiceDescriptions, Service]; Service Engagement [which includes EngagementDecision and TriggerEvent]; and, Service Performance [Interaction, RWE-Cause(ServiceAction)-Effect]. I think Activity and Action need to be separated out since they occur throughout and need to be defined at a higher level of abstraction than this operational architecture ontology view. I think Capability* here needs to be understood as the lower-level-of-abstraction operational view below the RM-level view of Capabilities. Cheers, Rex At 10:58 AM -0600 9/11/08, dellis wrote: Ken, Jeff, Frank
Here is a Governance/Policy table for our discussion. Jeff, what is the best way to handle UML 2.0 "pre-condition" in our RA diagrams.
Dave
From: Jeffrey A. Estefan [mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 10:02 AM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Discussion of Ontology
Dave,
As you know, I suggested that we schedule a F2F in the not too distant future to address some of these harmonization and key concept issues.
Incidentally, guess the question also goes to Ken, what is the difference between our (RM's) notion of Execution Context and your notion of Service Engagement in the Protoge ontology diagram you sent out yesterday? I don't see the value in adding yet another core concept that's not in the RM.
Cheers...
- Jeff
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Policy Type.docx ( / ) (00BFC53F)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
-- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 |