OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

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

Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Groups - Rough notes taken during the last ebSOA meeting. (ebSOA-Elements.pdf) uploaded

May I suggest another way of approaching this problem.

It might be useful to try to answer the following question:  What is in the 
abstract reference model that is useful for other specifications?

Or to phrase it another way, what questions do the other specifications 
that will build on the abstract reference model want answered?

Maybe approaching it this way might help determine what is "abstract" and 
what is "concrete" because at some level almost anything could be 
considered abstract or concrete depending on ones perspective.


At 05:06 PM 4/10/2005, Ken Laskey wrote:
>Hmm, an interesting question because I was attempting to remain
>abstract in specifying what I thought were elementary functions and not
>specifying the "thing" that was involved.  I don't know if the input
>and/or output of every service is a message but I have a hard time
>imagining an SOA where these functions didn't occur.  Which ones could
>I drop?  Is there a more general description that maintains the
>function?  Is there an example of something that is not a message but
>which serves the function?
>On Apr 10, 2005, at 3:45 PM, Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>>create, transport, receive, save and archive don't strike me as being
>>words that convey "abstract" very well, wouldn't you agree?
>>Is the input and/or output of every consumption of a service
>>necessarily a "message"?
>>On 10-Apr-05, at 12:10 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>>>I have not yet gone through the rest of this thread (and several
>>>others) but it seems that while the message itself is not part of the
>>>RM, the ability to create, transport, receive, and possibly
>>>save/archive the message is part of the RM.  Can we conceive of an
>>>SOA without messages?  Consider the message exchange patterns (MEPs)
>>>that are part of WSDL 2.0 for the types of message patterns people
>>>imagine.  Do we think these are accurate?  How does the RM
>>>acknowledge these?
>>>On Mar 30, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Duane Nickull wrote:
>>>>Hi Rebekah:
>>>>Some comments inline:
>>>>Metz Rebekah wrote:
>>>>>All -
>>>>>I have another 25 messages to go before I catch up with all the
>>>>>on the list, so I apologize if my comments are already outdated.
>>>>I would recommend reading Thomas's elegant summary - it may save you
>>>>some time ;-)
>>>>>Respecting the service description, contract, and data model from
>>>>>Duane's message - does you think that "all aspects of the service"
>>>>>encompasses the service interface and the policy?  I like the use
>>>>>of the
>>>>>term service contract, but have seen several interpretations of the
>>>>>ranging from semantics ("what is meant") to syntax (vis a vis the
>>>>>and also that the WSDL is the data model is the contract.  I would
>>>>>that the contract is the same as the data model.  However, I'd have
>>>>>think a bit more to provide a convincing argument rather than simply
>>>>>positing an idea.
>>>>The data model is the abstract concept of what data you will pass in
>>>>and out of a service.  An open ended question is "does the data
>>>>model include the notion of semantics?".  I would like to hear
>>>>comments back on this matter.
>>>>>Continuing into the message, I would disagree with the following:
>>>>>>If I build something and that is "Service Oriented"
>>>>>>architecturally, does it have to have a "message"?  No - the
>>>>>>service itself has a mechanism that allows a service consumer to
>>>>>>bind to it to invoke the service but it doesn't actually have to
>>>>>>be invoked for it to be "service oriented architecture".
>>>>>I would argue that conceptually, a message exists.  <SNIP>
>>>>Try to think abstract.  If you think concrete - then the answer is
>>>>yes, however the reference model is not concrete.  No other
>>>>reference models use messages by convention either.  If you find one
>>>>that is well scrutinized and accepted by peers, please let me know.
>>>>>The mechanism by
>>>>>which the consumer binds to the service and invokes it constitutes
>>>>Conceptually - yes.  The "service" element of the SOA RM draft on
>>>>the position paper includes the concept of a binding.  A physical
>>>>message does not have to be sent.  When using the RM to write a
>>>>concrete SO infrastructure architecture, one would recognize that a
>>>>message protocol would likely be needed to be specified, along with
>>>>several other items like security, potentially some sort of state
>>>>management (like BPM), etc etc.
>>>>I hope this helps a bit.
>>>>-- ***********
>>>>Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. -
>>>>Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
>>>>Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources  -
>>>Ken Laskey
>>>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-883-7934
>>>7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-883-1379
>>>McLean VA 22102-7508
>Ken Laskey
>MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-883-7934
>7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-883-1379
>McLean VA 22102-7508

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