RE: [soa-rm-ra] RE: Proposed revised wording for issue #218 (my action i

Actually, you can do conversational using controller, that keeps track of the conversation state. This is a FSM design, that I talked about before

From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:05 PM
To: Lublinsky, Boris; 'Mike Poulin'; 'Bashioum, Christopher D'; 'Peter F Brown'; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] RE: Proposed revised wording for issue #218 (my action item from last meeting)

Boris,

Whether these are orthogonal is the point in question. If something is hierarchical, it implies a top that controls the hierarchy below. If something is conversational, it implies an interaction where, at least for the topic of the conversation, is among approximate peers rather than levels of the hierarchy. I don’t have a conversation with a controller; I have non-peer relationships in a hierarchy.

Rather than orthogonal, they appear parallel.

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: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Lublinsky, Boris
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:47 AM
To: Mike Poulin; Bashioum, Christopher D; Peter F Brown; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] RE: Proposed revised wording for issue #218 (my action item from last meeting)

The Point is that there are two types composition – conversation and hierarchical ant there are 2 implementation approaches controller and peer to peer and the two are totally orthogonal

From: Mike Poulin [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:18 AM
To: Lublinsky, Boris; Bashioum, Christopher D; Peter F Brown; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] RE: Proposed revised wording for issue #218 (my action item from last meeting)

I've looked into the article. I have found that it was written in a bit different 'language' than we use now. So, I have not caught the nuance.

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?

May be. It can be a single interface, where execution is state dependent

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]

Mediator 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

www.peterfbrown.com

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

www.peterfbrown.com

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

www.peterfbrown.com

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.

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.

soa-rm-ra message