[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Definition of "Service Consumer"
Agreed. I suspect that it such would, indeed, be the case, and probably in many more domains as well. Ciao, Rex At 3:40 PM -0400 4/10/05, Chiusano Joseph wrote: ><Quote> >My position is that we are describing IT Service-Oriented Architecture, >not, for instance, a more traditional Plumbing or Aerospace Plumbing >Service-Oriented Architecture. ></Quote> > >Additional point: If, to carry out its mission and goals, an aerospace >plumbing operation* could function more efficiently by being supported >by systems and technologies that are architected according to >service-oriented principles, then I believe that such an aerospace >plumbing operation can benefit from the work that we are doing. > >*using "operation" in business operation terms, not WSDL terms > >Joe > >Joseph Chiusano >Booz Allen Hamilton >Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] >> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 10:49 AM >> To: Matthew MacKenzie; Gregory A. Kohring >> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Definition of "Service Consumer" >> >> If by '"rigid" you mean UML, then, notwithstanding the >> implicit agreement in the positions of my last post and >> Matt's post, then I am in favor of a narrow definition within >> the scope and context of IT per se. And, I do think we need >> to either vote on or gain clear consensus for each our terms, >> no matter how few there are, but in respect of how few they >> should be and I definitely prefer the fewest possible to do >> the job on a necessary and sufficient basis. So far I think >> we are getting close to necessary, but remain quite a >> distance from sufficient. To put it in Einsteinian aphorism, >> we have it nearly as simple as possible, but I think that is >> too simple to satisfy the "simple enough" test. So far I >> think we are arriving at a necessary but insufficient level >> of definition. >> >> My position is that we are describing IT Service-Oriented >> Architecture, not, for instance, a more traditional Plumbing >> or Aerospace Plumbing Service-Oriented Architecture. Nor are >> we describing a First Order Philosophical Principle. >> >> In the information technology context, given the parameters >> of fluid dynamics within the temperature ranges that support >> human life as we know it, we would certainly have a welcome >> ontological (taxonomical actually, IMO) slot for such >> plumbing SOAs as the examples offered. >> Gowever, those taxonomies would only come into play one or >> two levels of abstraction below the Reference Model. However, >> semantically and ontologically, I think we need to make our >> work clearly applicable in an easily and clearly >> comprehensible way, exactly as expressed in the >> charter: for a non-technical audience. >> >> I just want our work to be fully grounded as opposed to >> non-normatively tethered to the concrete. I don't see a hard >> and fast separation between abstract and concrete that >> doesn't flirt with irrelevance or court being dismissed out >> of hand by either the commercial or academic communities. >> >> Ciao, >> Rex >> >> At 9:08 AM -0400 4/8/05, Matthew MacKenzie wrote: >> >Personally, I'm not game for votes on individual >> definitions. I just >> >want to reiterate my assertion that "invoke" is too narrow a >> word here, >> >given the discussion that took place originally over "requester" vs. >> >"consumer". I'm still not convinced such a role is even >> required to be >> >defined in this document unless the consensus is to model >> the RM in a >> >"rigid" modeling language. >> > >> >-matt >> >On 8-Apr-05, at 2:34 AM, Gregory A. Kohring wrote: >> > >> >> >> >>Here is a summary of yesterdays proposals for defining the term >> >>"Service Consumer": >> >> >> >>1) Software that invokes an instance, >> >> >> >>2) Software that uses a service instance, > > >> >> >>3) An agent that wishes to interact with a service, >> >> >> >>4) An agent that interacts with a service in order to >> >> achieve a goal, >> >> >> >>5) An entity that binds with a service is playing the >> >> role of service consumer, >> >> >> >>where the suggested definition of "agent" was: >> >> >> >>1) An Agent is a software program acting on behalf of an owner. >> >> >> >>(By substituting this definition in some of the above >> suggestions you >> >>can come up with yet more definitions of service consumer.) >> >> >> >> >> >>Now, just out of curiosity, how do we proceed from here? >> >>Do we vote on one of the suggested definitions? (This implies we >> >>should vote on the definitions of all the terms to be used in the >> >>final document.) Or do we leave it up to the editors to pick the >> >>definition which best fits the style of writing being used >> within the >> >>final document? >> >> >> >> >> >>-- Greg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>============================================================ >> ========== >> >>G.A. Kohring >> >>C&C Research Laboratories, NEC Europe Ltd. >> >>============================================================ >> ========== >> >> >> >-- >> >Matthew MacKenzie >> >matt@mac-kenzie.net >> >* Read my blog! http://blog.tekni.ca/ >> >> >> -- >> Rex Brooks >> President, CEO >> Starbourne Communications Design >> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >> Berkeley, CA 94702 >> Tel: 510-849-2309 >> -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-849-2309
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]