RE: [soa-rm-ra] revised section 4.3

["Mike Poulin" <mpoulin@usa.com>]

My comments are in the text
- Michael

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Peter F Brown

Sent: 01/17/12 02:59 AM

To: Ken Laskey

Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] revised section 4.3

Hi,

 

 

OK, here is the Gold Copy returned, with filename incremented.

 

 

The main changes compared with Ken’s send out of a few hours earlier are:

 

 

-          Section 3.1.1 – clarification of term “Actor” to make it compatible with the UML construct of the same name (useful for our purposes and for the modelling that follows);
MP: I agree with the Role for Stakeholder

 

-          Update of fig 5, to include Activity;

MP: 1) it seems from the scetch that Actor only contributes into Ecosyste being outside of it... (influence on SOA-based Structure does not justify that Actor belongs to the Ecosystem) Should we clarify this issue?

             2) it seems from the sketch that Actor does not contribute (via feedback) into Sosial Structure. Is this right?

 

 

-          Section 3.1.2.1 – moved fig 6 below role definitions: fits better with text that follows regarding needs, requirements, capability, etc that also appear in the use case of fig 6;

MP:  The same for fig. 6:    2) it seems from the sketch that Actor does not contribute (via feedback) into Sosial Structure. Is this right?
        I like Actor relates to Action via Roles.
 

 

-          Section 3.2.3 – introduce ‘Activity’ (using RM-ODP definition) and new (informal) diagram and clarification of our use of ‘Action’ and ‘Activity’ (normative reference to RM-ODP has also been added to section 1.6.1)

MP: for 2.3.2. - why we need an activity _diagram_ here?  If we follow  ISO/IEC 10746, we have to modify a lot of places replacing Action by Activity since, according to tihs standard, Activity includes Action(s) (and other Activities)... In this case, the concept of Joint Action gets burried inside an Activity. Also, an interaction between a consumer and a service is just another consumer activity.

It seems that RAF has a bit different vocabulary it is based on than  ISO/IEC 10746.

 

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

Peter F Brown

 

 

Independent Consultant

 

 

www.peterfbrown.com

 

 

P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA

 

 

Tel: +1.310.694.2278

 

 

 

 

 

From: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Ken Laskey
Sent: Monday, 16 January, 2012 16:18
To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov; Thornton, Danny R (IS); ellis@deccs.com
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] revised section 4.3

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve incorporated all adjudicated changes to section 4.3 and attempted to capture consensus in some original material appearing in section 4.3.4 to the end.  I am hoping for a continuation of the agreeability over the past few days and everyone will be happy with the changes; at the least, I am hoping for an acceptable balance among everyone’s remaining unhappiness.

 

 

 

 

 

Take a look and start the discussion.  I’d like nothing better than to have this resolved before Wednesday’s call.

 

 

 

 

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Dr. Kenneth Laskey

 

 

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305              phone: 703-983-7934

 

 

7515 Colshire Drive                                    fax:        703-983-1379

 

 

McLean VA 22102-7508