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: terms - how this works


Rex,

 

Agreed that thorough should not turn into endless.  If there is not an obvious consensus nailed down before our Wednesday call, then an agenda item will be to reach the best consensus feasible and move on with that.

 

Ken

 

From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rex.brooks@ncoic.org]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:58 AM
To: Laskey, Ken
Cc: mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: terms - how this works

 

Be careful with that car if it has remote controls or automatic overrides, at least if you want to get down to unambiguous control. I'm happy with ambiguous control, but just leave it at control please. This thread is making my point about endless discussions.

Rex

On 2/28/11 5:24 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:

Michael,

 

This is an instance where the word has a connotation as well as a definition, and there is no clarifying of the definition that adequately removes all ambiguity.

 

If I am driving a car, I control the car.  If I am chairing a meeting, I try to manage it.  There is an element of control, but it is certainly not the same as driving the car.

 

We all have experiences where management wants to be in control and succeeds or fails depending on various dynamics with those involved.

 

So given all these shades of gray, I’d like to avoid the word control in this instance.

 

Ken

 

 

From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:41 AM
To: Laskey, Ken; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: terms - how this works

 

Ken,

 

I had the same understanding about 'control' as you mentinoed until I read that Merriam-Webster says about it:

 

CONTROL is:

1.

a archaic : to check, test, or verify by evidence or experiments

b : ...

2

a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over : aka regulate

b : to have power over : rule

c : to reduce the incidence or severity of especially to innocuous levels 


It seems that underlined activities are the ones that Management does. So, we have a potential conflict between what people mean by 'control' and what the word stands for in the language...

 

- Michael

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
To: mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Mon, Feb 28, 2011 1:16 am
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: terms - how this works

Michael,

 

I agree with everything but the word control in the definition.  Management have a great deal to do but “controls” very little.

 

Ken

 

From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 8:01 PM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: terms - how this works

 

To me, the chain of logic would be: relationship of stakeholders with governance, THEN relationship of governance with management. There is no need to repeat the entire chain starting from stakeholders when talking about management. This is why IMO it is enough to refer to governance in the definition of management. (BTW, Governance may need to address, among other things, not only the needs and desires of stakeholders but also a compliance with external regulations that the stakeholders might not like).

 

Whether Governance more or less detailed depends on particular case; 'less detailed' is not a rule but a recommendation, correct? At the same time, Governance not only shares the area of procedures with Management (this part is mine, and this one is yours) but also specifies the policies that Management itself has to operate under. In this model, Management occupies the room left by the Governance, not other way around.

 

Still, I'd prefer using formula "Management is a process of controlling..." and dropping the definition of 'control' (to use it in sense defined by public dictionary(ies)).

- Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
To: mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 11:03 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: terms - how this works

See inline

 

 

From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 5:00 PM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Re: terms - how this works

 

Ken, could you, please, explain what does mean:

in accordance with the policies of the stakeholders involved.

Why we outline stakeholder policies? Why is it more important that whatever governing policies?

 

[KJL] Policies better reflect the needs and desires of stakeholders.  Otherwise, what is governance trying to accomplish?


Also, I would disagree that "the defining and implementing of procedures" is an exclusive prerogative of Management. In many cases, Governance gets to the level of details needed to minimise potential deviations caused by 'managerial interpretations', i.e. Governance defines the procedures and Management only implements them.

 

[KJL] So there is probably a tradeoff between the detail specified under governance and what is left up to management.  In the best of situations, I’d say what is specified as governance should be less detailed.

 

I have put definition of 'control' from Merriam-Webster in my previous message in support of Rex's formula that includes 'control' into the definition of 'management'. This definition include guiding and use. Why we concern about availability of resources and not about accessibility (channels of communication) of resources that is also a part of management duties?

 

[KJL] I’ve given my opinion on control.  When I do define:management under Google I get

 

Management in all business and human organization activity is the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management

 

administration; the process or practice of managing; The executives of an organisation, especially senior executives; Judicious use of means to accomplish an end

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/management

 

As far as the list of what falls under management, most possibilities that are left out are because we stopped listing things, not that other things don’t qualify.

 

Ken

 

 

- Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
To: mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 8:45 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: terms - how this works

My leaning is we need to define management but not control. 

 

The governance section contains:

Whereas Governance is the setting of Policies and defining the Rules that provide an operational context for Policies, the operational details of governance are likely delegated by the Governance Body to Management. Management generates Regulations that specify details for Rules and other procedures to implement both Rules and Regulations. For example, Leadership could set a Policy that all authorized parties should have access to data, the Governance Body would promulgate a Rule that PKI certificates are required to establish identity of authorized parties, and Management can specify a Regulation of who it deems to be a recognized PKI issuing body. In summary, Policy is a predicate to be satisfied and Rules prescribe the activities by which that satisfying occurs. A number of rules may be required to satisfy a given policy; the carrying out of a rule may contribute to several policies being realized.

 

A good summary statement in this section is:

governance describes the world as leadership wants it to be; management executes activities that intends to make the leadership‘s desired world a reality.

 

So I would argue that control is a red herring.  We all like the illusion of control but the important thing is to make happen what you want to happen whether it’s through control, influence, structuring alternatives to be less desirable, or magic – noting that sometimes a combination of all four is necessary.  So, I would suggest something like the following:

 

Management is the defining and implementing of procedures and activities that structure and guide the use, configuration, and availability of resources in accordance with the policies of the stakeholders involved.

 

This may be getting a bit long but I think it better captures the consensus message.

 

Have at it.

 

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: Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:48 PM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Re: terms - how this works

 

I a close to Perter's take on 'management' and 'control'. However, management in SOA ecosystem is not a usual thing and, thus, requires to be addressed explicitly, especially, for cross-ownership cases where 'control as is' is rather questionable. So far, I am not sure I have addressed this topic as needed in the release-candidate of the Management Model.

 

- Michael

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com>
To: mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 7:29 pm
Subject: RE: terms - how this works

The ‘issue’ of actor and participant is a non-issue: it is a question of badly worded definitions using the words “is a” in too loose a manner. This will be addressed in the revisions we do.

The issue you have with management and control may be similar – but frankly for me, both concepts fall into the “do we really need to define terms for these?” box. I think every average Joe gets the meaning of management and of control, I’m not sure we need to define them differently here…

 

Peter

 

From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Sunday, 27 February, 2011 10:59
To: peter@peterfbrown.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: terms - how this works

 

This is the question to all:

as I mentioned before, we have several definition that loop with each other. This subject was omitted but now I have a direct problem with definition of Management and Control

 

In the proposed version of Management Model, Management is defined as a 'process of controlling'; Rex proposed to define 'management' as 'control. However, the definition of 'control' in the version of 17 Jan says: "an account of how the management and governance of the entire SOA ecosystem can be arranged"

 

First, 'control' is NOT how "governance of the entire SOA ecosystem can be arranged", but how governance may be implemented ('arranged' may be read as 'create', which would be an incorrect interpretation)

 

Second, management => control => account how management is arranged. This means, we know neither about 'control' nor about 'management' (similarly, Actor refers to Participant and Participant refers to Actor, etc.)

 

Please, anybody, explain me how this works?!

 

- Michael

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com>
To: mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Wed, Feb 23, 2011 3:38 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] RE: List of terms in section 3

Michael,

some quick responses to your points.

 

Capability – I see your point. If we accept that RWE is ‘subjective’ to the particular stakeholder(s) concerned, then actual RWE should be orthogonal to what (shared state changes) a capability actually delivers. A capability nonetheless delivers a RWE, whether it is intended/asked for/desired or not. A capability is used (= intention) in order “to realize one of more RWE’s” (from the RM). Subtle difference we may need to work on: I want to be careful that we don’t contradict the RM definition. I still don’t buy into your notion that somehow a service result can be slipped into the private state of an actor without it being part of the RWE.

Permission – fair point. We were trying (too hard) from a very early stage (<2008) to work with a duality of constraints, permission and obligation. I’d be happy to not formally define either.

RWE – still disagree with you! ;-) Your approach over-complicates the whole story, with private and public RWE’s, whatever they are (I’m still not clear) and, frankly, your diagram only makes the issue more complicated and does notadvance us to a clear definition. Our approach is to separate objective and subjective PoV’s: state changes are generally objective and measurable while an RWE is in the eye of the beholder – my RWE is not necessarily your RWE (your suntan, my sunburn – same sun, same exposure – sorry, but I’m just back off holidays), experienced mileage will vary. That is why we introduced the words ‘pertinent’, ‘relevant to’, ‘experienced by’ and ‘specific stakeholders’.

Shareable and Shared State – I never liked the introduction of shareable as a defined concept. I voted for and would again vote for keeping only private and shared state, stating that shared state is the part of the ‘shareable’ or public state that is actually (and not just potentially) shared. See our mail exchange of 31 Jan.

Service – at the meeting of 19 Jan, we agreed to go with a ‘definition’ (not formally defined, but used in the text) that states that a service is ‘a realisation of business functionality accessible through defined interfaces’

 

Regards,

Peter

 

 

From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011 05:47
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: List of terms in section 3

 

Folks,

 

I have very limited access to e-mail today. So, I hope to discuss my comments on the definition in the meeting today. Here are my belate comments :

 

Also, a few days ago I have sent a message to Ken with a small diagram that illustrates my proposal on the definition of RWE (that would include all chnages in the state of the ecosystem, not only public ones). You will see how this affects other definitions below.

 

DEFINITION

Term

Line in Model

Line where's defined

Definition

Comment

DEFINITION

Capability

1080

1107

A capability is an ability to achieve a real world effect.

Not only, capability is also to sutisfy the consumer needs that may be NOT in the RWE but in returned service result (in private state). The problem here is in the definition of RWE.

DEFINITION

Mediator

835

844

A mediator is a role assumed by a participant to facilitate interaction and connectivity in the offering and use of services.

Based on the Note 1 and definition of Participant, Service Registry/Repository or ESB are not mediators. It is OK with me.

DEFINITION

Permission

925

950

A permission is a constraint that prescribes actions that an actor may (or may not) perform and/or the states the actor may (or may not) be in.

The wording is strange IMO: permission does not prescribe, it permits/alowes

DEFINITION

Real World Effect

 

1181

A real world effect is a measurable change to the shared state of pertinent entities, relevant to and experienced by specific stakeholders of an ecosystem.

Still disagree with this. A consumer and its state are the part of the state of the SOA ecosystem regardeless who can/may access it. If private state of the consumer chnages, it is the change in the overal ecosystem state. If we do not go with this interpretetation, we will end-up with this: a cosumer of the service is interested, first of all, in the returned service result and only then may or may be not interested in the RWE. Examples: 1) I order a book because I am interested in having this book and do not care that somebody has a job to deliver this book to me; 2) I order a cleaning of the street in front of my house becuase I am interested in the clean road in front of my gates and in convenience of my neighbours who pass through this spot , i.e. I am interested in the returned results AND in the RWE avalibale/accessible to other potential consumenrs.

DEFINITION

Sharable State

 

 

That part of an entity’s state that is knowable to other actors

Proposal: That part of an entity’s state that MAY BE knowable to and may be accessible to, other actors, while the entity is not necessary aware of this knowlegde and access

DEFINITION

Shared State

 

907

Shared state is that part of an entity‘s state that is knowable by, and may be accessible to, other actors

Proposal: Shared state is that part of an entity‘s state that is knowable by, and may be accessible to, other actors, which is expected by the entity.

USE INFORMALLY

Service

835

 

 

IMO, we have to find a form of expression where we can refer to the RM definition and to append 'realisation of business functionality accessible though defined interfaces' simultanously making this a sort of refined definition.

 

 

- Michael

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bashioum, Christopher D <cbashioum@mitre.org>
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: Laskey, Ken <klaskey@mitre.org>
Sent: Wed, Feb 23, 2011 3:08 am
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] RE: List of terms in section 3

Ken,

 

request that we add an agenda item for tomorrow’s TC: the finalization of the list of terms for definition in Section 3.  Since sending out the email below, I have not received any input from the TC on amending the list of what will be formally defined, what will be dropped, and what will be used informally.  Would like to formally vote on this tomorrow so we can close it out.

 

This is important, as Peter and I would like to start the actual writing.  We have done some editing, but need to get a solid draft of Section 3 written up and delivered to the TC.  This is a necessary step for that to occur.

 

I will try to make the TC call tomorrow, but may miss it or be late due to work constraints.  Peter is planning on making the first part of the TC call, but will have to leave early for a client call, so we would like to have this as an early agenda item if possible.

 

Thanks!

 

From: Bashioum, Christopher D
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:32 AM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: List of terms in section 3
Importance: High

 

At our last conf call, we proposed a list of terms that Section 3 will define.   Attached is a spreadsheet that contains that list.

 

The spreadsheet identifies terms that will be formally defined (identified with “DEFINITION” in the first column), terms that will not be used (DELETE) and terms that will *not* be formally defined but will be used and will rely on the reader’s understanding of the english language (USE INFORMALLY).   I have sorted the spreadsheet accordingly.

 

For the terms that will be formally defined, an initial definition is given in the  Definition column.  For those terms that will be either deleted or used informally, some amplifying text is in the Notes 1 and Notes 2 columns.

 

So ... first item is to come to agreement on what will be formally defined in section 3.  If you think that we missed some terms, or that we have included terms that should not be formally defined, please reply as such.  Would like to come to consensus on this by next conference call.  Definitions we will debate and refine after coming to agreement on the list of terms.

 

Michael P, your input has been incorporated in this list – except that i have interpreted your “delete” as “Don’t formally define, just use as normal english language in the text”.

 

=

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 

smime.p7s



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