OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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


And its Saturday tomorrow...

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Ken Laskey; mpoulin@usa.com; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov
Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?

I'm actually getting clearer. Now I know it's Friday...

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: Ken Laskey
Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2011 11:55
To: mpoulin@usa.com; peter@peterfbrown.com; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov
Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?



> I may be getting more confused as this thread continues.  My reading of the sentence includes a bit more: “everything that goes on behind the curtain of ‘service activity’ is what we understand a service as ‘doing’ (mechanism) rather than ‘being’ (entity)”.
>
>
>
> Service, as used in its current overloaded way, is both a thing and something done, i.e. what delivers a well-defined business function.  For the RM, we concentrated on the thing because the something done was more the output of the capability.  The local voice track in my day job has evolved a bit to where we get more traction by talking of service, in the more business sense, as being the combination of the capability and the access to the capability.   This is in line with the RM which says one doesn’t need to beat the separation to death.
>
>
>
> I wish we could formulate a response to this morass that would satisfy everyone in our audience, but I fear the best we can do is clearly make the points they need to understand most and delicately sidestep what would undoubtedly be distractions from those points.
>
>
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 1:02 PM
> To: peter@peterfbrown.com; Laskey, Ken; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov
> Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
>
>
>
> Peter,
>
> "we understand a service as ‘doing’ (mechanism) rather than ‘being’ (entity" - I CANNOT AGREE with this.
>
>
>
> Service is an ENTITY , which is DOING. Service is an application or a business team that provides actions resulting in the execution of capabilities. A half of SO Principles define the THING and another half defines the thing's BEHAVIOR.
>
>
>
> I am afraid if we start going into direction that 'service is only doing', we have to re-write the RAF entirely.
>
>
>
> As of 'communication activity' and 'service activity', this was my understanding of real world and our intent to reflect for the long time. I would also added a 'consumer activity' based on intent and willingness and resulted in  'communication activity'.
>
>
>
> The problem you face with service=doing is in that what service is, what service body is - isn't visible through the service interface. However, the consumer is interested in this interface at the last moment only. First of all, the consumer searches for the entity that can do certain thing. What the entity is, is it trustful, is is compliant, etc. are the first questions; only then the consumer concerns how interact with this service and trigger the 'doing' part.
>
>
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com>
> To: 'Ken Laskey' <klaskey@mitre.org>; mpoulin@usa.com; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com; jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov
> Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Sent: Fri, Jan 14, 2011 4:16 pm
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
>
> Ken:
>
> When I stated that “service != resource” my concern was mainly with how we understand service in formal terms.
>
> Given the modelling exercises to date, I did not want us to get into the trap of service *is-a* resource. Services use, create and manipulate resources. I would be OK with stating that a capability is-a resource (not that it adds a whole lot of understanding to an already complex situation) but I still maintain that a service is more the mechanism by which a capability is brought to bear to do something. It is not an ‘entity’ in the sense that we use in defining resource.
>
> In Jeff and my discussion on action, following the TC call Wednesday, and taking on board the consensus of the TC to move “communicative action” > “communication” and “service action” > “action”, we realise that in a SOA ecosystem there are broadly two ‘types’ of ‘activity’:
>
> – ‘communication’, which includes the process of semantic engagement and establishes an execution context; and
>
> – ‘service activity’, which starts at the point of invocation by a participant and involves a ‘composition’ of one or more (service) actions, resulting in a shared state change that is delivered’ back to the participant and seen as a (series of) RWE. We sketched it out as an activity/behaviour diagram.
>
> In this perspective, it seems clearer that everything that goes on behind the curtain of ‘service activity’ is what we understand a service as ‘doing’ (mechanism) rather than ‘being’ (entity). In other words, a service can be seen as a fulfilment (‘doing’) of the ‘promise’ offered by the capability (‘being’)…
>
> Does that make sense?
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> From: Ken Laskey [ <mailto:klaskey@mitre.org?> mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> Sent: Friday, 14 January, 2011 05:31
> To:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com;  <mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com> peter@peterfbrown.com;  <mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com> boris.lublinsky@navteq.com;  <mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov> jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov;  <mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org> soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
>
>
> First, and without having read the text, I can certainly see our discussion of management focusing on services and not resources in general.  What I didn’t understand was a blanket statement that service != resource.  I can limit a discussion to services, but sometimes lumping services into the discussion of resources is useful.
>
>
>
> As for single vs. multiple enterprises, I thought I sensed the assumption of a level of top-down control that typically is outside the realm of the organizations with which I work.  Those organizations are committed to building a services enterprise and interacting,  and I need to ensure that our work also supports them.
>
>
>
> Ken
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dr. Kenneth Laskey
>
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305              phone: 703-983-7934
>
> 7515 Colshire Drive                                    fax:        703-983-1379
>
> McLean VA 22102-7508
>
>
>
> From:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com [ <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com?> mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 8:16 AM
> To: Laskey, Ken;  <mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com> peter@peterfbrown.com;  <mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com> boris.lublinsky@navteq.com;  <mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov> jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov;  <mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org> soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
>
>
>
> I have explained in my posts to Jeff, that, as Ken referred, resource includes service by the definition we use currently in the RAF. However, in several places  (in management) it makes sense to talk about 'services' rather than about 'resources' and I made several changes with this regard in the draft sent to Jeff for the review.
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
> P.S. I'm still wondering what in my words caused Ken to believe that I limited my approach by the enterprise only. When I worked in Fidelity, we had the same multi-enterprise conglomerate and the SOA issues about cross-enterprise governance ans management 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 < <mailto:klaskey@mitre.org> klaskey@mitre.org>
> To:  <mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com> peter@peterfbrown.com; 'Lublinsky, Boris' < <mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com> boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>;  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com;  <mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov> jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov;  <mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org> 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 the problem is in saying service = resource.  Last I checked we said “A resource is any identifiable entity that has value to a stakeholder.”  A service would certainly seem to fit there.  Sorry I haven’t read the other material, but what is the harm?
>
>
>
> One other thing for those working management.  I sent the following to Michael while we were talking about testing and about composition.  I think it is relevant to keep in mind for management too.
>
>
>
> <perspective>
>
> One other difference I think 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 of enterprises.  So I have 16 separate intelligence agencies, 5 separate military entities, and numerous other government organizations.  They all expect to be service providers and service consumers.  There is no single “top” to the hierarchy, i.e. no single CIO or similar figure.  This ecosystem requires all the flexibility and consequent challenges we ever talk about with SOA.  On top of that, lives (both participants and non-participants) are at risk in many outcomes.  I think this also impacts our discussions of composition.
>
> </perspective>
>
>
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dr. Kenneth Laskey
>
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305              phone: 703-983-7934
>
> 7515 Colshire Drive                                    fax:        703-983-1379
>
> McLean VA 22102-7508
>
>
>
> From: Peter F Brown [ <mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com?> mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 1:57 AM
> To: 'Lublinsky, Boris';  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com;  <mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov> jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov;  <mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org> soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
>
>
>
> +1 on service != resource. Jeff and I worked on the action and state parts of section 3 and relating 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 to express that more clearly still….
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> From: Lublinsky, Boris [ <mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com?> mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 13 January, 2011 18:39
> To:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com;  <mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov> jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov;  <mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org> soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
>
>
>
> A lot of comments inside.
>
> The big one services are not resources lets stop using these two terms intercheangeably.
>
>
>
>
>
> From:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com [ <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com?> mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:16 PM
> To:  <mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com> boris.lublinsky@navteq.com
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
>
>
>
> Sure, here you are.
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lublinsky, Boris < <mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com> boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
> To:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com < <mailto: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 in anticipation of the full thing. Can you resend? Please?
>
>
>
> From:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com [ <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com?> mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:45 AM
> To:  <mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com> boris.lublinsky@navteq.com
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
>
>
>
> Oh! I cannot stand such argument. There are two things in my paper: several fragments from different parts of the doc (with related line numbers) - you can ignore all of them & the FULL section on Management Concept - as it was, commented, modified and extended. In this case, you can take it The Gospel from RAF & Michael; all context is in there.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lublinsky, Boris < <mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com> boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
> To:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com < <mailto: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 knowing what was there. It’s like you can always grab enough quotes from Bible to prove that God does not exist
>
>
>
> From:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com [ <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com?> mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:48 AM
> To:  <mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com> boris.lublinsky@navteq.com
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
>
>
>
> Boris, I have not merged the changed texts back to the full document yet. I'do it based on the Jeff's comments soon. Sorry about this. I tried to extract enough context for each change to justify it.
>
>
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lublinsky, Boris < <mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com> boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
> To:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com < <mailto: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 to read.
>
> Can you send a doc with the full content
>
>
>
> From:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com [ <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com?> mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:53 AM
> To:  <mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov> jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov;  <mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org> soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [SOA-RAF] Interested in helping with Mgmt Model?
>
>
>
> 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. I think that the diagram to be updated again based on the Dan's additions.
>
>
>
> Please, let me know if I am moving into the agreed direction.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Estefan, Jeff A (3100) < <mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov> jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>
> To:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com < <mailto: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:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com [ <mailto: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) < <mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov> jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>
> To:  <mailto:mpoulin@usa.com> mpoulin@usa.com < <mailto: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 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.
>
>   _____
>
> 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.
>
>   _____
>
> 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.
>
>   _____
>
> 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.
>


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.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]