[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison ofdefinitions
Michael, Lets say there is a BIG red button, that blows half of the
world. If RWE is not specified in the button description, one will push it just
for fun. So you should bother. From: mpoulin@usa.com
[mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] That is, the consumer is
interested in the service Result first of all, and, maybe, in RWE. However, if
RWE is not returned to the consumer, then why bother about it at all, even in
the Service Description? - Michael -----Original Message----- A service description SHOULD list what the provider considers
pertinent RWEs. A consumer likely uses the service to realize some, if
not all, of these RWEs. It is possible there are other effects of which
the requester is unaware. An effect with negative consequences is
someone is selling a house because the house has an asbestos problem.
An effect with positive consequences is my daughter is thirsty and tells me tap
water isn’t good enough but is satisfied when I fill an Avian bottle with tap
water. The purpose of a consumer using a service is expected to be the
realization of RWE. It is possible but unlikely that the only effects of
interest to the consumer are effects realized privately. However, if the
service description advertises certain RWE and the service performs as
expected, the RWE are realized whether the consumer wants these or not. The viewpoint is that of the ecosystem with its stakeholders and
actors and resources needed to make things happen. Ken From: mpoulin@usa.com
[mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Very well, Ken, if we follow RM
about RWE, we cannot say that the purpose of the service is to provide RWE or
that the service provides RWE always. The purpose of the service is the consumer satisfaction while
this consumer can consume the entire service result and do not leave anything
for public. This means, service does not necessary provides RWE. Oups! BTW, I
do accept this formula being INSIDE the SOA ecosystem. However, from the
ecosystem level of view, everything in it is visible, i.e. shared with the
ecosystem. This all is about viewpoint. We have to choose one and then agree
on what is what in its view. If RM also insists on that service always provides RWE - it
becomes an oxymoron and RM 'sits between chairs' in this matter. - Michael -----Original Message----- Michael, Where we agree is description can’t contain every possible piece
of relevant information (as noted in the RM), and sufficient description is in
the eye of the beholder. We say enough about description to make it clear
that a Web Service interface alone is not sufficient; if someone wants to
insist it is, that’s their problem. By definition, if something is shared then it is to some extent
public, i.e. available to someone (not everyone) else. RWE is defined in
the RM as a change in shared state (and requested information exchange), so
private results not evident to someone else is not RWE, at least not as far as
the ecosystem is concerned. Ken From: mpoulin@usa.com
[mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
If I go this way ("the
change in private states is the change in private states is unknown to the
SOA ecosystem ) I can easily end-up with that consumer
internals and service internals (everything - Actions, activities, invocation
of other services/resources, intent, willingness, etc.) are " unknown to the SOA ecosystem", which
leads to that neither consumer nor service are really known to the SOA
ecosystem except for their public interfaces (Hello, Web Services! Where are
you hiding?) All this starts to become an utopia. Why? For the sake of
insisting that RWE is public only, which is absurd (sorry, but it is if the
word World means something else other than Everything, i.e. not World). I used
to think that does not matter if service produce private or public results, it
is the change in the state of the World... Is this also incorrect? We can avoid a lot of misinterpretations and confusions
if we admit very simple thing: RWE is the change in the state of the World
including public/private or shared/private things. This means that any service
always produces the RWE regardless if it is consumed privately or publicly. The difference between RWE and service Result is in that Result is
the only thing promised and admitted by the service while RWE is the use of the
service Results that is not announced in the Service Description. Everyone can
use the service result in any unexpected way and service result can cause many
different changes in the state - both are the parts of the RWE, which the
service consumer does not care. I would like to have a SOA ecosystem that includes all external
activities (between entities) and all internal activities (of the entities);
SOA ecosystem sees all. Inside the SOA ecosystem, some entities are not always
acting publicly and this is OK - RAF has to describe and define things on the
both sides of interfaces. Where I am wrong? - Michael -----Original Message----- Let’s try it this way: a service action (by which I mean
an action from the Action Model) results in the change of public and possibly
private states. The change in public states is RWE, the change in private
states is unknown to the SOA ecosystem unless these become public at a later
time. Ken From: mpoulin@usa.com
[mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Ken, I gave this example as an evidence of inconsistency and
brocken/forgotten dependency between definitions. I have to be more accurate: "then we have said that that result is outside the scope of our
consideration" is not the same as "we just said it is not what we are considering under RWE".
The latter I is true if RWE is public only BUT the former may be understood as
that private service result is out of the scope of RAF! This I cannot agree
with because BOTH types of result belong to the SOA ecosystem. Service Action produces private (always) and public (sometimes)
results and only the public one is RWE. If you agree with this statement, than
the purpose of the service is to produce Result whether public or
private, or both. - Michael -----Original Message----- Michael, I agree with most of your points, except the final one on
RWE. Someone may use a service to satisfy some private need but if the
result is only known privately, then we have said that that result is outside
the scope of our consideration. We didn’t say the private result didn’t
occur, we just said it is not what we are considering under RWE. 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: mpoulin@usa.com
[mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Before going through details and definitions, I think we have to
agree on the a few principles. Since RAF is about SOA ecosystem and we agreed that this one
includes both business and technology then: 1) we cannot operate with definitions from RM with no changes
because RM did not considered ecosystem. However, the changes of RM
definitions should not deny the original definitions but may modify/extend them
for the new context - ecosystem 2) all definitions we use have to be either meaningful/"interepretable"
in both Business and Technology or we have explicitly identify
the scope of the definition and justify that it does not work in the entire
ecosystem ( in this case we will never confuse SOA-based system with
'just'/technical system 3) we have to draw a relationship/dependency lines (like in
Value Networks) between our definitions to see consistency and influence
between them. This better be not in a table format but in a map format. For
example, in one place we say that service purpose is to provide a RWE; in
another place we say that RWE is only shared/pubic thing; this leads to the
conclusion that the purpose of service is to provide only shared/pubic thing, which is incorrect. If we can agree on these
principles and approach, we can eliminate a lot of unnecessary
discussions - Michael -----Original Message----- As promised, attached is a comparison of the terms defined in the
28 July 2010 draft alongside the definitions used in the latest draft (in Excel
and .ods formats) As you will see, there are precious few instances of where the
definitions match exactly, although in many cases it was more a case of
cleaning up the wording (particularly to conform with standards for
definitions, eg ISO 1087) than actually changing the definition. Regards, Peter Peter F Brown Independent Consultant Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies Blog
pensivepeter.wordpress.com LinkedIn www.linkedin.com/in/pensivepeter Twitter @pensivepeter P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA Tel: +1.310.694.2278 Tel: +1.310.694.2278 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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]