[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] another pearl
No, we always said EC was all of these agreement, not just policies This is explicit in the RM. If I typically use vocabulary A and you typically use vocabulary B, we better have an agreement to use A or B or agree what exists that we will use to mediate between them. Otherwise, all the policy agreements will go nowhere is we can understand the messages we exchange. 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] I am afraid, this is another pearl in the text: 4.1.2.1.3 Service Description, Execution Context, and Service 2018 Interaction 2019 The service description MUST provide sufficient information to support service visibility, 2020 including the willingness of service participants to interact. However, the corresponding 2021 descriptions for providers and consumers may both contain policies, technical 2022 assumptions, constraints on semantics, and other technical and procedural conditions 2023 that must be aligned to define the terms of willingness. The agreements which 2024 encapsulate the necessary alignment form the basis upon which interactions may 2025 proceed – in the Reference Model, this collection of agreements and the necessary 2026 environmental support establish the execution context. Since when Execution Context became agreed with service consumer? We used to say that EC is a set of policies, and the latter are non-agreeable entities. - Michael |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]