However, I've got a few questions. In particular, in the
Figure 2 Conversational service composition
what the Service Composition is shown? It seems, it has several interfaces, but what it is itself? Is it a Service with multiple interfaces from the consumer perspective?
In the
Figure 3 Mediator-based composition topology
I think that a part of the diagram is missed: if the request comes from another service that may be the conductor, the role of mediator is pure technical - network connections. Whithout knowing who controls the logic of invocation (I very much doubt that a mediator may do so not being a participant), I do not see a uniqness of proposed topology. [If mediator controls the invocation logic, it is THE conductor]
- Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Lublinsky, Boris
Sent: 01/11/12 02:26 PM
To: Bashioum, Christopher D, Peter F Brown, soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] 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]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:37 AM
To: Lublinsky, Boris; Peter F Brown; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Proposed revised wording for issue #218 (my action item from last meeting)
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
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:01 PM
To: Peter F Brown; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] RE: Proposed revised wording for issue #218 (my action item from last meeting)
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]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:58 PM
To: Lublinsky, Boris; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Proposed revised wording for issue #218 (my action item from last meeting)
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]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 January, 2012 19:55
To: Peter F Brown; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Proposed revised wording for issue #218 (my action item from last meeting)
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]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:48 PM
To: Lublinsky, Boris; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Proposed revised wording for issue #218 (my action item from last meeting)
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]
Sent: Wednesday, 04 January, 2012 08:19
To: Peter F Brown; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Proposed revised wording for issue #218 (my action item from last meeting)
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
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:16 AM
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Proposed revised wording for issue #218 (my action item from last meeting)
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
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
Using Information Technologies to Empower and Transform
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel: +1.310.694.2278
Member of:
Follow me:
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.
