| Michael,
I think I misunderstood something you said because we are arguing the same points.
My comment of a service description possibly referencing service contracts would be along the lines of 3rd party annotations.
Ken On Apr 13, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Mike Poulin wrote: Ken, I am lost with "The service description would only reference service contracts " and this is why: Service exists independently from its consumers, right? Service is announced and described for potential consumers by Service Description. At this moment there NO service contracts exist. Service contract is a derivative from the Service Description; service contracts refer to service description, not other way around (at least, this is what we had in RM and in RA draft 1) "because the contracts are a use of a service". Service description is "a fundamental aspect of the service" and it does not know who and how uses the service according to the service contract. - Michael ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org>
To: "Mike Poulin"
Cc: "Danny Thornton" , "James Odell" , "soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org"
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:35:26 -0400
The service description would only reference service contracts as examples of use because the contracts are a use of a service, not a fundamental aspect of the service.
Implicit policies are captured in the EC, but managing ECs is different from (but should be coordinated with) managing the services used.
Ken
On Apr 13, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Mike Poulin wrote: As I mentioned before, we may have a Service Description with references to Policies as a Services Contract. The Service Description must refer to the EC as well. The latter may have implicit policies not mentioned in the Service Description and, respectively, in the Service Contract, IMO. - Michael ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org>
To: "Danny Thornton"
Cc: "James Odell" , "soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org"
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:41:14 -0400
I don't think there is a disagreement on the definitions of Policy and Contract, but can we have a contract without policies involved?
I own a book and you would like it so I send you the book and you send me $20. One could say there are implied policies surrounding exchange of value, but in that case we need to say something about the context providing default policies that set expectations of behavior. Otherwise, one could easily argue that there were no policies involved.
Note, the RM defines both Policy and Contract but in my reading there is no requirement for the former in order to have the latter.
Ken On Apr 12, 2009, at 11:09 PM, Danny Thornton wrote: Section 4.4, Policies and Contracts Model, has been written to incorporate the bare essentials of the decomposition of policies and contracts such that the essentials are true to any SOA system. With that said, the section does need a revision to be in synch with the latest changes to the document.
The RA currently states:
"a policy is an enforceable constraint or condition on the use, deployment, or description of an owned entity as defined by any participant. A contract is a constraint that has the agreement of the constrained participants."
Qualifying Policies and Contracts beyond this means pushing a particular understanding of a policy or contract specific to a particular system need. If someone states a counter example of the use of policies and contracts that would invalidate a constraint in the RA on policies and contracts, then that is a good test that the qualification should not be in the RA.
Yes a policy is a prerequisite for a contract in that a contract is a policy that is an agreement. Are people looking for a check list of how contracts are used in a SOA? The possibilities are infinite.
Danny
-----Original Message-----
From: "James Odell" <email@jamesodell.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 7:03pm
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
Hi Frank,
Hmmm. While the two ³the enforcement of the two is fairly closely aligned²
-- contracts are not necessary for Policies, only the other way around.
Policies, IMO should stand alone on their own. The CEP folks argue that
policies and events are ³fairly closely aligned². I can name a half dozen
other areas that could say the same. The bottom line is that: Policy is a
concept that may be necessary, but not sufficient for other areas.
Therefore, I strongly support its own sub-section.
-Jim
On 4/11/09 6:11 PM, "Francis McCabe" indited:
> Hi Jim
> Thank you for taking a look.
> As far as policies go, we have havered a little (to use a Scottish-ism) on
> how to organize it. In the RM work we closely identified the two -- with the
> distinction being that contracts are agreed to and policies are asserted. Once
> you have either one, the enforcement of the two is fairly closely aligned.
> Frank
> On Apr 11, 2009, at 2:46 PM, James Odell wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After yet another reading of the SOA-RA (Foundation?) and having sat through
>> the recent spate of meetings, I have the following say about the
>> reorganization of the SOA-RA:
>>
>> Overall, I think that the chapters and topics are sequenced in a coherent
>> and logical manner. Perhaps, it is because I read it too many times now.
>> But, I don¹t think so.
>> Also, I understand the need to minimize the amount of work needed on the
>> SOA-RA at this point in its development. We need to get it released for
>> public comment ‹ without compromising quality and understandability, of
>> course.
>> Having said this, the only thing that bothers me enough to suggest a
>> reorganizational change is the area of Policies:
>>
>> 1) Policies, in general, are depicted in document far earlier than they are
>> finally addressed (by 40-50 pages). Since policies ‹ IMO ‹ are an important
>> ingredient in the SOA-RA, I would like to see them addressed earlier. (My
>> personal opinion is that policies are not mentioned anywhere near the amount
>> that they should. For example, they are used in events, composition of
>> services, roles, and organizations. However, since this would involve
>> additions to the current document, I will not push this)
>>
>> 2) I strongly dislike grouping the entire topic with contracts. While
>> policies are used for contracts, Policy is a standalone concept ‹ which
>> neither depends on nor is used solely with Contract. (Even the OMG and W3C
>> treat policies as a separate notion.) Why is this reasonable? Because
>> policies are used in a variety of situations ‹ only one of which is
>> contracts. By placing Policies in lock step with (and almost subordinate to)
>> with Contracts is not appropriate, IMO.
>>
>> 3) My suggestion: separate Policies and Contracts into two distinct
>> subsections (e.g., 4.4 and 4.5).
>>
>> In short, this would provide clarity for the notion of Policy and not
>> require much change to the current document.
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: "James Odell" <email@jamesodell.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 7:03pm
> To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> Hmmm. While the two ³the enforcement of the two is fairly closely aligned²
> -- contracts are not necessary for Policies, only the other way around.
> Policies, IMO should stand alone on their own. The CEP folks argue that
> policies and events are ³fairly closely aligned². I can name a half dozen
> other areas that could say the same. The bottom line is that: Policy is a
> concept that may be necessary, but not sufficient for other areas.
> Therefore, I strongly support its own sub-section.
>
> -Jim
On 4/11/09 6:11 PM, "Francis McCabe" indited:
> Hi Jim
> Thank you for taking a look.
> As far as policies go, we have havered a little (to use a Scottish-ism) on
> how to organize it. In the RM work we closely identified the two -- with the
> distinction being that contracts are agreed to and policies are asserted. Once
> you have either one, the enforcement of the two is fairly closely aligned.
> Frank
> On Apr 11, 2009, at 2:46 PM, James Odell wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After yet another reading of the SOA-RA (Foundation?) and having sat through
>> the recent spate of meetings, I have the following say about the
>> reorganization of the SOA-RA:
>>
>> Overall, I think that the chapters and topics are sequenced in a coherent
>> and logical manner. Perhaps, it is because I read it too many times now.
>> But, I don¹t think so.
>> Also, I understand the need to minimize the amount of work needed on the
>> SOA-RA at this point in its development. We need to get it released for
>> public comment ‹ without compromising quality and understandability, of
>> course.
>> Having said this, the only thing that bothers me enough to suggest a
>> reorganizational change is the area of Policies:
>>
>> 1) Policies, in general, are depicted in document far earlier than they are
>> finally addressed (by 40-50 pages). Since policies ‹ IMO ‹ are an important
>> ingredient in the SOA-RA, I would like to see them addressed earlier. (My
>> personal opinion is that policies are not mentioned anywhere near the amount
>> that they should. For example, they are used in events, composition of
>> services, roles, and organizations. However, since this would involve
>> additions to the current document, I will not push this)
>>
>> 2) I strongly dislike grouping the entire topic with contracts. While
>> policies are used for contracts, Policy is a standalone concept ‹ which
>> neither depends on nor is used solely with Contract. (Even the OMG and W3C
>> treat policies as a separate notion.) Why is this reasonable? Because
>> policies are used in a variety of situations ‹ only one of which is
>> contracts. By placing Policies in lock step with (and almost subordinate to)
>> with Contracts is not appropriate, IMO.
>>
>> 3) My suggestion: separate Policies and Contracts into two distinct
>> subsections (e.g., 4.4 and 4.5).
>>
>> In short, this would provide clarity for the notion of Policy and not
>> require much change to the current document.
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
>
| | <bottom.letterhead> |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
-- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
-- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 |