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] Management Model section after comments of this week


Check boxes are on form going to same URL.

 

 

From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:57 PM
To: Laskey, Ken; 'Lublinsky, Boris'; mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week

 

In theory yes,

In practice those are typically several different URL that are doing the actual processing

 

From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 9:53 PM
To: 'Lublinsky, Boris'; mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week

 

re

I do not think (I am sure) service provider CAN NOT accommodate multiple policies of a same service version.

 

of course they can.  You collect personal information from me in the process of me using your service and you have considerable flexibility on how you handle that information.  We often use Web sites with check boxes for other offers or sharing with “business partners”.  You uncheck the box to make a choice.

 

Is it that much of a stretch to say there are three well recognized privacy policies and you make choosing between them easy for two.  Why can’t I ask for the third?

 

You go into a restaurant and something that was on the menu last month is not there now.  You’ve never asked if they can still make the deleted item?

 

Ken

 

 

From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:44 PM
To: Laskey, Ken; 'Lublinsky, Boris'; mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week

 

I think that the only reasonable answer to this problem – and I realize it’s a real problem – lies in versioning. As a result of point - to – point negotiation a separate specialized version of service with the policies required by client can be created. But this will be a separate version with a separate description and deployment.

I do not think (I am sure) service provider CAN NOT accommodate multiple policies of a same service version.  

 

From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 9:33 PM
To: 'Lublinsky, Boris'; mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week

 

re

As an example of alternatives, the service description may identify which versions of a vocabulary will be recognized, and the specifics of the contract are satisfied when the consumer uses one of the alternatives[U1]      . Another alternative could have a consumer identifies one of the policys it is they required to satisfy, e.g., a standard privacy policy on handling personal information, and a provider that is prepared to accept a policy request would indicate acceptance as part of the service contract by continuing with the interaction. [U2]      In each of these cases, the actions of the participants are consistent with an implicit service contract without the existence of a formal agreement between the participants.

 

we need to accommodate interactions between different participants who may come with independent policies and part of establishing execution context is resolving policy differences.  I know my sponsors acting as consumers will not have policies dictated.  OTOH, they will bog to a standstill if every resolution requires point-to-point negotiation.  This comes up in discussion but no one has seriously looked at making it work.  The RAF doesn’t have the basis to dictate its solution, but finding acceptable middle ground is always a challenge to an ecosystem.

 

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: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:34 PM
To: mpoulin@usa.com; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week

 

Changing of policy actually changes contract, so I do not think that you can change/manage policy without managing service contract.

 

 

This is still not good:

Vocabulary version typically specified by a service version. In practice a given service version corresponds to a given vocabulary version.

Consumer can’t specify policies, they are specified by provider. Consumer can only agree on policies dictated by provider. Stating otherwise is like coming to the store and setting your own price

 

Manageability of a service allows controlling the service results, shared and sharable RWE against the business goals and objectives of the service. [U3]      

Service results and and RWE are what service does. How can this be managed?

 

 

From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 5:52 AM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week

 

Folks,

I have incorporated all comments and chnages into attached document. In some places, I have repeated the text (in different font) just to save and show the comments that I responeded insted but didn't change the text.

I am not sure what tactics we prefer now - to go through all left comments together in the meeting or for me to resolve each comment with particular author (in some cases I disagree with the comment, however).

 

Cheers,

- Michael


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.


 Nice try

 Not readable. Also A consumer can’t really define a policy, which is not directly supported by provider. So I do not know how valid this example is

MP: the text is modified. This example talks about a consumer’s choice offered by the provider.

 What exactly does this mean?

MP: this is the mechanism of the performance management

smime.p7s



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