[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Proposed revised wording for issue #218 (my action item from last meeting)
I send you guys a link to my 2007 article Implementation approaches to service composition
http://www.infoq.com/articles/lublinsky-soa-composition where I did described possible approaches. This is where I am coming from. These topics are also described in our Book – Rosen, et
all Applied SOA. From: Bashioum, Christopher D [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org]
Boris, You seem to be equating the term “external entity” with “engine”. In my mind, an engine is an automated process (and, therefore, an implementation), whereas an “external entity” may or may not be automated.
In some cases, the external entity may be a human, or something that requires human intervention. Is this what you are trying to get at? If not, would you please give some examples of orchestrations that do not require an “external entity” to be accomplished, as I am not getting the nuance you are trying
to explain. From: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Lublinsky, Boris Well, your text is: It is important to note that business collaborations achieve their goals through actions undertaken by and among themselves without the need for an “external” entity that coordinates or “conducts”
those actions. This is in contrast to business process orchestration that does require such an entity. Which say exactly what I mean – you use orchestration engine as a distinguishing factor From: Peter F Brown
[mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com]
Boris, Actually, I don’t think we do….it may be a language issue but I don’t see a big gulf….only in understanding each other :-/ Peter F Brown Independent Consultant P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA Tel: +1.310.694.2278 From: Lublinsky, Boris
[mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com]
My problem is that orchestration engine is on of the ways of implementing orchestration, while there other implementation approaches. Consequently, making orchestrator a distinguishing
factor does not really seems right to me. The distinction should be on the level of something else. For example – orchestration is the sequence of steps, while choreography is description of messages used to fulfill a given activity. But all of you guys think otherwise.
From: Peter F Brown
[mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com]
Boris, What aspect of this don’t you buy. Please explain otherwise I have no basis upon which to judge what if anything needs changing… Peter F Brown Independent Consultant P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA Tel: +1.310.694.2278 From: Lublinsky, Boris
[mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com]
Sorry, do not buy this.
From:
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Peter F Brown Current text (lines 2185-90): Business collaborations typically represent the interaction involved in executing business transactions. It is important to note that business collaborations represent “peer”-style interactions; in other words, peers in a business collaboration act as equals. This means that unlike the orchestration
of business processes, there is no single or central entity that coordinates or “conducts” a business collaboration. These peer styles of interactions typically occur between trading partners that span organizational boundaries. Proposed new wording: Business collaborations typically represent the interaction involved in executing business transactions. These styles of interaction typically occur between trading partners that span organizational
boundaries. It is important to note that business collaborations achieve their goals through actions undertaken by and among themselves without the need for an “external” entity that coordinates or “conducts”
those actions. This is in contrast to business process orchestration that does require such an entity. Best, Peter
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA Tel: +1.310.694.2278
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]