RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with MgmtModel?

[Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com>]

Hmmm
What I get is that the service is perceived/experienced by a stakeholder as a thing (thus, noun use) but from a system-level it's the activity...is that closer?

Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
www.peterfbrown.com
@pensivepeter
+1.310.694.2278
Until 9 January: +32.472.027.811

Sent from my Phone - Apologies for typos, levity and brevity - it's hard to type on a moving planet

-----Original Message-----
From: mpoulin@usa.com
Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2011 12:17
To: boris.lublinsky@navteq.com; peter@peterfbrown.com; klaskey@mitre.org; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?



> My turn to disagree: service is the noun, interface is the verb.
> 
> 
> - Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lublinsky, Boris <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
> To: peter@peterfbrown.com <peter@peterfbrown.com>; mpoulin@usa.com <mpoulin@usa.com>; klaskey@mitre.org <klaskey@mitre.org>; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Fri, Jan 14, 2011 6:39 pm
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I do disagree,
> The simplistic differentiation is that service is a verb, whileresource is a noun
>  
> 
> From: Peter F Brown[mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 12:08 PM
> To: mpoulin@usa.com; klaskey@mitre.org; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com;jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with MgmtModel?
> 
>  
> Agreed. My point too: to take your example, a database is notitself a service, but it can ‘brought to bear’ as a service bythe use of the resources that it manages… a different issue – that’s also why,in my ‘onion’ diagram, the capability is at the core – it’s the part that is‘furthest away’ from the ecosystem stakeholder: the stakeholder ‘serviceinteraction’ (in an informal sense) is through the system to its capabilities…
>  
> We have some careful juggling to do, but I think we’re gettingthere…
> Peter
>  
> From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] 
> Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2011 06:02
> To: klaskey@mitre.org; peter@peterfbrown.com; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com;jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with MgmtModel?
>  
> Ken, 
> 
>  
> 
> currently we have resourceINCLUDES service. I do agree with this and try to convince Boris to look wideron the issue. I guess that the root of the "blanket statement that service !=resource" isin technology where resource is usually a data source (repeat, I guess hereonly). With such viewpoint, we certainly do not want a database to be called aservice. However, if a resource has wider meaning (as we have) than a datasource, I do not see any problems in saying resource in the cases where we needto generalize but still include service in the case.
> 
>  
> 
> Ithink we are on the same ground here, Ken.
> 
>  
> 
> -Michael
> 
>  
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
> To: mpoulin@usa.com; peter@peterfbrown.com; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com;jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Sent: Fri, Jan 14, 2011 1:30 pm
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
>  
> 
> First, and withouthaving read the text, I can certainly see our discussion of management focusingon services and not resources in general.  What I didn’t understand was ablanket statement that service != resource.  I can limit a discussion toservices, but sometimes lumping services into the discussion of resources isuseful.
> 
>  
> 
> As for single vs.multiple enterprises, I thought I sensed the assumption of a level of top-downcontrol that typically is outside the realm of the organizations with which Iwork.  Those organizations are committed to building a services enterpriseand interacting,  and I need to ensure that our work also supports them.
> 
>  
> 
> Ken
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Dr. Kenneth Laskey
> 
> MITRE Corporation, M/SH305             phone: 703-983-7934
> 
> 7515 ColshireDrive                                   fax:        703-983-1379
> 
> McLean VA 22102-7508
> 
>  
> 
> 
> From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 8:16 AM
> To: Laskey, Ken; peter@peterfbrown.com;boris.lublinsky@navteq.com; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov;soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with MgmtModel?
> 
> 
>  
> 
> I have explained in myposts to Jeff, that, as Ken referred, resource includes service by thedefinition we use currently in the RAF. However, in several places  (inmanagement) it makes sense to talk about 'services' rather than about'resources' and I made several changes with this regard in the draft sent toJeff for the review. 
> 
> - Michael 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> P.S. I'm still wonderingwhat in my words caused Ken to believe that I limited my approach by theenterprise only. When I worked in Fidelity, we had the same multi-enterpriseconglomerate and the SOA issues about cross-enterprise governance ansmanagement are quite familiar to me. ( I do not work for Fidelity anymore, Ken,and my status in OASIS is an independent member)
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
> To: peter@peterfbrown.com;'Lublinsky, Boris' <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>;mpoulin@usa.com; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov;soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Sent: Fri, Jan 14, 2011 12:15 pm
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not sure what theproblem is in saying service = resource.  Last I checked we said “Aresource is any identifiable entity that has value to a stakeholder.”  A service would certainly seem to fit there.  SorryI haven’t read the other material, but what is the harm?
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> One other thing forthose working management.  I sent the following to Michael while we weretalking about testing and about composition.  I think it is relevant tokeep in mind for management too.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> <perspective>
> 
> 
> One other difference Ithink I see in our perspectives is that you tend to work within an “enterprise”and I tend to work in an enterprise that is explicitly a collection ofenterprises.  So I have 16 separate intelligence agencies, 5 separatemilitary entities, and numerous other government organizations.  They allexpect to be service providers and service consumers.  There is no single“top” to the hierarchy, i.e. no single CIO or similar figure.  Thisecosystem requires all the flexibility and consequent challenges we ever talkabout with SOA.  On top of that, lives (both participants andnon-participants) are at risk in many outcomes.  I think this also impactsour discussions of composition.
> 
> 
> </perspective>
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Dr. Kenneth Laskey
> 
> 
> MITRE Corporation, M/SH305             phone: 703-983-7934
> 
> 
> 7515 ColshireDrive                                   fax:        703-983-1379
> 
> 
> McLean VA 22102-7508
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 1:57 AM
> To: 'Lublinsky, Boris'; mpoulin@usa.com;jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov;soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with MgmtModel?
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> +1 on service !=resource. Jeff and I worked on the action and state parts of section 3 andrelating them back to service, which we barely mention. I’m still, personally,in favour of thinking of service as a ‘mechanism’ but we have to find ways toexpress that more clearly still….
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 13 January, 2011 18:39
> To: mpoulin@usa.com; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov;soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with MgmtModel?
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> A lot of comments inside.
> 
> 
> The big one servicesare not resources lets stop using these two terms intercheangeably.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:16 PM
> To: boris.lublinsky@navteq.com
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with MgmtModel?
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Sure, here you are. 
> 
> 
> 
> - Michael
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lublinsky, Boris <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
> To: mpoulin@usa.com <mpoulin@usa.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jan 13, 2011 4:50 pm
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops,
> 
> 
> 
> I deleted it inanticipation of the full thing. Can you resend? Please? 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:45 AM
> To: boris.lublinsky@navteq.com
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with MgmtModel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Oh! I cannot stand suchargument. There are two things in my paper: several fragments from differentparts of the doc (with related line numbers) - you can ignore all of them &the FULL section on Management Concept - as it was, commented, modified andextended. In this case, you can take it The Gospel from RAF & Michael; allcontext is in there. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Michael
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lublinsky, Boris <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
> To: mpoulin@usa.com <mpoulin@usa.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jan 13, 2011 2:09 pm
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understood,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it still presumes knowingwhat was there. It’s like you can always grab enough quotes from Bible to provethat God does not exist 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:48 AM
> To: boris.lublinsky@navteq.com
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with MgmtModel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boris, I have not mergedthe changed texts back to the full document yet. I'do it based on the Jeff'scomments soon. Sorry about this. I tried to extract enough context for eachchange to justify it. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lublinsky, Boris <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
> To: mpoulin@usa.com <mpoulin@usa.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jan 13, 2011 3:36 am
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is really hard toread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you send a docwith the full content
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:53 AM
> To: jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov;soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with MgmtModel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Jeff, 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here are two docs attached- one is the commented version and another one is the version with the comments'accepted'. What I did, I tried to merge the Dan's version with my comments. Ithink that the diagram to be updated again based on the Dan's additions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, let me know if Iam moving into the agreed direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Estefan, Jeff A (3100) <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>
> To: mpoulin@usa.com <mpoulin@usa.com>
> Sent: Sun, Jan 9, 2011 9:28 pm
> Subject: RE: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
> 
> 
> 
> Michael,
>  
> I really appreciate taking time to go through the Mgmt model as currently 
> articulated in the RAF but we knew going in that the focus there was by and 
> large too focused on systems management and so that is why we gave Dan Heston 
> the opportunity to write something up, which he did and I've attached to this 
> note.  This work was done back in Sept of last year and there are a few e-mail 
> threads on the topic plus some discussion on the calls, but then the topic was 
> unfortunately dropped.   Nevertheless, I will review your recommended updates as 
> they look quite well thought out.  In the meantime, if you could review Dan's 
> draft update, that would be much appreciated.  It is still mission visual (UML) 
> models.
>  
> Thanks again!
>  
>  - Jeff
>  
> ________________________________________
> From: mpoulin@usa.com [mpoulin@usa.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 7:48 AM
> To: Estefan, Jeff A (3100)
> Subject: Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
>  
> Jeffrey,
>  
> as promised, I have reviewed the Management Model section and attached my notes.
>  
> Since we deal with Management Concept, it influences other Concepts in the 
> document. This required me to look through the entire document and review every 
> occasion where management is mentioned. As a result, I have several notes and 
> proposals for changes in other sections, e.g. in Governance sections, there are 
> references to TOGAF 8.1 which are outdate already due to TOGAF 9.0 available for 
> a year already.
>  
> Thus, I have extracted all related text fragments into separate document and 
> modified them as needed. The line numbers have been preserved and match the line 
> numbers in the original document. I’ve excluded the fragments that I suggest are 
> correct, do not require modifications and do not raise questions.
>  
> I have edited the text on two computers and the side notes marked OP... are mine 
> as well as MP.
>  
> In addition to the text changes, I put some side comments with explanations of 
> my changes and questions. Plus, I added a few small sections such as Service 
> Configuration Manageability, Contracts ( in the Management Contracts and 
> Policies) and new term 'Solution' in the glossary. I've put all manageability 
> items into the new diagram (embedded).
>  
> I am looking for your comments and an advice on how to proceed from this point: 
> will this work go under your supervision or independently, like Peter/Chris do.
>  
> Regards,
> - Michael
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Estefan, Jeff A (3100) <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>
> To: mpoulin@usa.com <mpoulin@usa.com>
> Sent: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 7:14 pm
> Subject: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
>  
> Michael,
>  
> Are you interested in helping with the Management Model?  I was planning on 
> reviewing what was originally written in the RAF, which is very sparse and 
> largely focused on system management vs. services as managed entities and then 
> look over what Dan H. put together.  That material is missing visual models.
>  
> I feel this is far too important a concept, particularly its relationship to 
> governance, to simply “punt” and say we are not going to include it in our RAF 
> work.  I see it as even more paramount than the Testing Model although I know 
> you and Ken are making headway there.  If we can tackle both, great, but we 
> simply cannot punt on Management and only include Testing.
>  
> Just let me know your thoughts.
>  
> Regards…
>  
> - Jeff
> =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information containedin this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use ofthe recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you arehereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of thiscommunication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have receivedthis communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy theoriginal message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information containedin this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use ofthe recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you arehereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of thiscommunication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you havereceived this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroythe original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information containedin this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use ofthe recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you arehereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of thiscommunication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you havereceived this communication in error, please notify the sender anddelete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paperfiles. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information containedin this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use ofthe recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you arehereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication,or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received thiscommunication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy theoriginal message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>