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-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra]Comparison of definitions


Probably I still do not get something.

Anything 'sharable' assumes transition into the shared state in the future. When service executes, some parts (none or all) results of this execution: a) may be returned to the requesting consumer making a change to the shared state of service interaction, and b) may be left for the future consumption, i.e. sharing, with currently unknown consumer - this is the shareable part of the state of the SOA ecosystem.

I think that what I've just said contradicts to "This means that RWE (which is associated with a specific service invocation) can’t contain shareable state and reflects execution results and side effects only". If a service provider anticipates particular effect of the service execution, i.e. a result that is not returned to the consumer, why this effect cannot be a clearly pre-defined and expected RWE? 

For example, a consumer requires Calculator Service to calculate and persist the result (assume we couple these two types of activities or we simply ask A Service to persist something). The result of the service execution comprises: a) optional confirmation of the fact of persisting something, b) persisted something. It is almost obvious that the 'persisted something' is persisted to be accessed later. If this future accesser is not the same as the initial service consumer, we will have a transition of the SOA ecosystem state (in the form of this 'something') from sharable into shared. I do not see a problem here - the RWE was anticipated and announced because the provider thought about the future accesser, and this sharable state is the part of RWE and result of the service execution. What I've missed?


- Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Lublinsky, Boris <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
To: mpoulin@usa.com <mpoulin@usa.com>; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>; klaskey@mitre.org <klaskey@mitre.org>; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Fri, Jan 21, 2011 4:50 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions

And this is the difference.
I can’t imagine shareable state to be changing, based on a service invocation (for me service execution result is not part of this). This means that RWE (which is associated with a specific service invocation) can’t contain shareable state and reflects execution results and side effects only
 
From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 8:47 AM
To: boris.lublinsky@navteq.com; klaskey@mitre.org; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
 
Sorry, Boris, I have not got it. Can you rephrase and explain your statement?
 
My understanding of 'sharable' is the the 'thing' that may be shared in certain circumstances. 
 
Whose sharable state you are talking about? 
 
With regard to RWE, I say only the the RWE part specified in the Service Description is 'shared' while another part that the service produces does not consider in the service announcement is 'sharable' by unknown consumers.
 
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Lublinsky, Boris <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
To: mpoulin@usa.com <mpoulin@usa.com>; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>; klaskey@mitre.org <klaskey@mitre.org>; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Fri, Jan 21, 2011 2:28 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
I think that Service result is separate. If we take it out of equation, based on your definition, shareable state can not change as a result of a service invocation and hence shareable state is RWE which does no change. Is this what we are saying?
 
From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 4:17 AM
To: boris.lublinsky@navteq.com; klaskey@mitre.org; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
 
Boris,
 
I would prefer going with two notions: 'sharable' and 'shared'.
 
A state may be shared as the actual fact. An element of or an entity in the SOA ecosystem may be 'shareable' (aka adjective-based naming convention used for Java interfaces).
 
So, some examples of 'shared': RWE, service result (between consumer and service), Service Contract, service mediator, trust, social fact, state of the SOA ecosystem
 
So, some examples of 'sharable': RWE, Service Description, service interface, commitment, willingness, fact, identifier, ownership, policy, risk, social action,  service provider, service action, role
 
Non-sharable examples: service body/implementation, capability
 
 
There examples are only in my view but I may be mistaken in the categorization.
 
 
Regarding "...known information of service and consequently should not change as a result of invocation. So it can’t be RWE". If the shared state is a known information about service, a service execution changes this information, IMO, e.g., a number of service use has increased and the de facto service ROI increased. That is, the information about the service changes while the service implementation, Service Description and Contracts do not. RWE, in this case, includes the information about the service, i.e. it changes even at the level of the service itself, IMO.
 
I think we talk about the state of the SOA ecosystem, which includes "a known information of service " among known information about many other things such as consumers, stakeholders, service mediators, Registries/Repositories, policies, and so on. So, RWE (if we drop the issue of public/private) is generated as the result of any service invocation and realises in the change of the state of the SOA ecosystem, at least.
 
- Michael
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lublinsky, Boris <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>
To: mpoulin@usa.com <mpoulin@usa.com>; klaskey@mitre.org <klaskey@mitre.org>; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thu, Jan 20, 2011 11:56 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
Guys, can either of you define shared state and give an example? I do not believe that this thing is anything than a known information of service and consequently should not change as a result of invocation. So it can’t be RWE
 
From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:07 PM
To: klaskey@mitre.org; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Re: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
 
I feel, Ken we about 9 to 10 out of 10 have a match now (Ohh)
 
 If a service can be used in the ecosystem, the service is public è not sure yet: if service provider has produced a service exclusively for particular consumer, is it public or private? I cannot deny such service though it is not dedicated to access by arbitrary consumers. So, I do not know. We are saying that all services better be registered in public Registries to be available to wider audience and this is the Best Practice. Can we, in this case say that there may be private Service Registries and private services will be registered in there? I do not know.
 

A particular use of the service may include confidential information and the values exchanged as part of the interaction may be private, but the fact that information is exchanged when using the service is public. è more agree than not. See my comments above: I can imagine a VPN and, in this case, the fact that information is exchanged may be also private. Am I correct?
 
 
Some subset of results are RWE as defined as changes in shared state. è more agree than not. Chris has found a sharing/shared state in between consumer and service within a service interaction. That is, we have a change in the shared state that is a part of RWE AND the shared state that that is not.
 
 
To be shared, the knowledge that these states exist is public but the actual changes, i.e. the “values” during a given use, may be private è agree
 
- Michael
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
To: mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Thu, Jan 20, 2011 6:13 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
accessible with no restrictions”.  So, if the information is available as a 7 TB download that would be cut off by most providers, is it still public?  If we require someone to leave an email address, is it still public?  If the information is owned by someone and anyone who is willing to pay a nominal access fee to cover costs can access it, is it still public?  I expect we will see much in the way of such debates.
 
Back to our SOA ecosystem.  If a service can be used in the ecosystem, the service is public.  A particular use of the service may include confidential information and the values exchanged as part of the interaction may be private, but the fact that information is exchanged when using the service is public.  Some subset of results are RWE as defined as changes in shared state.  To be shared, the knowledge that these states exist is public but the actual changes, i.e. the “values” during a given use, may be private.
 
Ken
 
From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:04 PM
To: Laskey, Ken; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
 
Yes, it is definitely public because it is the status of the thing , not the status of potential consumers. At least, this is the exact definition in the UK (Freedom of Information Act in absence of Library of Congress). Public knowledge is public not because everybody know it (like Merriam-Webster Dictionary) but because it is available and accessible with no restrictions.  
I do not think the everything is private even in the limit: service provider is a public entity, Service Description document is public by nature while Service Contract may be public or private depending on the agreement while the default state is private. 
 
I seriously think that we have to take the viewpoint when define public/private: relationship of all things in the ecosystem to the ecosystem is public for the ecosystem. If we look at anything from this viewpoint, we can define and explain all things even those that are private by nature like intent and willingness. If we take a viewpoint of any entity inside the ecosystem onto another entity inside the ecosystem, it may be public or private. For example, an intent of a consumer to invoke a service is a private thing while the fact of invocation itself may be (as default) a public thing since the service registry is public. And so on.
 
As I said before, with current definition of 'private', it will be next to impossible to approach Business with SOA ecosystem.
 
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
To: mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Thu, Jan 20, 2011 3:46 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
I believe your argument fails at the other extreme.  Is something public if it is accessible but lots of potential users don’t know it exists or how to get to it?  By your definition, if circumstances limit access, then it is private and, in the limit, everything is private.
 
Ken
 
From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:29 AM
To: Laskey, Ken; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
 
If so (I disagree with this explanation of public), what is private? What could be private at all? 
 
If the thing belongs to SOA ecosystem, everything is public for the ecosystem. I accept this. But it may be not public inside the ecosystem for some of its elements and, in this case, it is private in the ecosystem.
 
Some internal Corporate Policies are private in the market but 'public' inside the corporation. In the country, all corporate internals must be accessible (public) by the government but they may be non-accessible for other corporations. 
 
We are talking absolutely trivial things. I am confused.
 
- Michael 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
To: mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Thu, Jan 20, 2011 1:39 am
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
Your getting the book and you now owning the book are public.  The book itself is a book.  You writing your name on your book when you receive it is private.
 
Ken
 
From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 5:02 PM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
 
Agree, "The ... delivery is RWE for anyone involved" but the book itself is not a part of this RWE because it is my private thing.
 
Or, there are no 'private' and 'non-shared' things in SOA ecosystem?
 
- Michael
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
To: mpoulin@usa.com; 'Bashioum, Christopher D' <cbashioum@mitre.org>; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Wed, Jan 19, 2011 9:55 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
The book delivery is RWE for anyone involved for which the book delivery or some part of the process is of interest.  The delivery car amortization is RWE for those dealing with the car financing.  Both are RWE, although likely unrelated, for the business entity delivering the book.
 
Ken
 
From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:44 PM
To: Bashioum, Christopher D; Laskey, Ken; boris.lublinsky@navteq.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
 
Chris, why do you think that appearance of the book in the postal package (i.e. nobody knows it is the book) at your doorstep is a RWE (" if I want a book to show up on my doorstep, I may need to go through several interactions or method calls to get that RWE")? According to Ken, the delivery car amortization is the RWE, but the book is the private Result of the service known to you - customer - and to the service only, i.e. it is not a RWE.
 
If RWE includes only public/shared things - we are diving into absurd, don't we? So, if it is me who does not see the forest behinds the trees then, probably, these trees are Sequia while the forest comprises only Karelian Birch
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Bashioum, Christopher D <cbashioum@mitre.org>
To: Laskey, Ken <klaskey@mitre.org>; 'Lublinsky, Boris' <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>; mpoulin@usa.com <mpoulin@usa.com>; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org <soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wed, Jan 19, 2011 8:52 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
I think there are some subtleties that still need to be teased out.  In order to try and get to the concept, I will speak very concretely.
 
First, a given RWE is not necessarily triggered by a method call.  turns out that a sequence of successful method calls will likely be necessary, and different sequences may result in different "aspects?" of a given service.  So, if I want a book to show up on my doorstep, I may need to go through several interactions or method calls to get that RWE, all of which may be part of the same interface.  This is what Ken was referring to when he spoke of process model on the TC call today. 
 
So ... I think I invoke a service, and invoking a service may be accomplished by sending multiple messages to multiple "methods" in a service interface.  Each message to each method may trigger a corresponding action, but the RWE I'm after is the end result of the aggregate of the actions.  Note that an error code, in my mind, is not a RWE, it is an error and I didn't get the RWE. 
 
In some cases, the information returned is the RWE.  Using the calculator example, let's suppose the calculator has 3 methods.  The first takes operand a, the second takes operand b, and the third takes the operator (+, -, * or /).  The RWE I want is the result of the aggregate of the method calls.  If I get an error code because I send a letter instead of a number for one of the operands, I won't get the RWE.  The RWE is in this case the return of information.
 
One could suggest that RWE is, at least in part, in the eye of the consumer.
 
Another thought ... I think we have to be careful in our conceptual model to keep distinct the difference  between a service and a "good" vs. "bad" service.  So ... if I design a "bad" service, is it still a service?   This pokes at the essence of what a service "is".
 
As for the interface, it turns out that message processing logic is more than an interface.  The RM tries to distinguish the message processing logic from the business logic.  You really need both to have a service.  If you have a great set of business logic, but nobody can get to it, you don't have a service.  If you have a great set of message processing logic, but no business logic, you don't have a service. 
 
I really liked Jeff's summary on the TC today, where he talked about interaction being all throughout the lifecycle and ecosystem, but "service activity" begins at the point that the consumer is actually invoking the service.  The interactions must occur prior to the activity, and is where the ecosystem stuff comes into play.  In which case, the service action must take into account the activity and process models of the service that the RM points out. 
 
 
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:10 PM
To: 'Lublinsky, Boris'; mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
 
Is there any major damage by my using red wording inline below?
 
As for importance of RWE, it is what someone wants and why they use service.  The RWE of a calculator is the result it displays.
 
Ken
 
From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:56 PM
To: Laskey, Ken; mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
 
Let’s try differently:
·         In accepted terms a service has an interface(s) – Service interface
·         Service interface has method(s) – Service methods.  Service interface defines message exchange with service
·         A service method (not a service) can be invoked.  Message to service Interface triggers service action through corresponding private actions
·         Service method provides an execution result.  Triggering a service action lead to results.
·         An execution result can either change a service state or return an error  Public  Results are changes in states or a return of information
·         A change in a service state may (or not) produce RWE  Changes to public states produce RWE
So far this is excepted set of thing that most of practitioners will relate to
Now here is a list of questions:
·         How is service action relates to the above? is it a service method invocation?
·         Why do we care so much about RWE? A calculator is a useful service with no RWE
 
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:41 PM
To: mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] RE: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
 
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]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:12 PM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm] Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
 
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-----
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
To: mpoulin@usa.com; peter@peterfbrown.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Wed, Jan 19, 2011 6:49 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
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]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:24 PM
To: peter@peterfbrown.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
 
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-----
From: Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com>
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Wed, Jan 19, 2011 6:07 am
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Comparison of definitions
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
Web         www.peterfbrown.com
Blog          pensivepeter.wordpress.com
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.

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]