> This is a good deck.
> A couple of comments:
> -? is a registry a good example? Do we have better ones? Is it more than
> I do not consider a registry to be a mediator. A registry is a specialized
entity in his own right with its own set of goals.
> Typically a mediator is an entity that is invoking service on behalf as a
consumer and is seen by consumer as a service (compare to proxy in a
distributed system). The difference between mediator and a simple proxy is
significant - mediator is more like an interpreter in a conversation between
people speaking different languages. Typical mediators do the following -
transport transformation (for example MOM to HTTP), semantic alignment (data
transformation), dynamic routing, often leveraging registry (version-based
> I am not sure how Skill is relevant for SOA
> I have a real issue with introducing resources into SOA. The problem is
Resources are orthogonal to services - it is a completely different model of
the world - see REST vs SOA. A service implementation internally does depend on
resources, but this is opaque to the service consumer.
> The issue here is that SOA is based on the functional decomposition, where
functions can cross resource boundaries, where Resource decomposition is based
on identifying resources, regardless of services they provide. A system can be
build either way, but those will be 2 different systems. The relationship is
similar to entity beans (resource) vs session beans (services).
> Semantics is a really hard one. The issue is that in SOA semantics is
defined by service provider. It is NOT specific to a consumer/provider pair. A
service consumer can have his own semantics, but he typically has to use a
mediator for resolving semantic differences
> From: Peter F Brown [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:09 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Strawman of outstanding issues
> We have worked through the entirety of outstanding issues, questions and
concerns for section 3 (along the way, examining also sections 1 & 2). We
have, inevitably many, many, edits to propose!
> However, and as promised on last week's call, we now present a
"Strawman", in the form of the attached slide deck which we think
touches on all the main issues and provides a narrative for addressing them.
> We stress this is not an editing exercise but an attempt to gain consensus
on the main issues, definitions and relationships between terms before the
proceeding with presenting detailed dispositions of textual changes, in line
with said consensus.
> As previously announced, I will not be able to join the call tomorrow as
I'll be some 30,000 feet over Kansas at the time of the call. Chris Bashioum
will lead off as your Maître d'
> Peter F Brown
> Independent Consultant
> Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies
> P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
> Tel: +1.310.694.2278
> The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it
from your computer or paper files.