Re: [soa-rm] Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [soa-rm] Requesters vs. Consumers

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

This discussion has surfaced many interesting aspects of the entities and at this juncture I think a capture of those thoughts is more important than picking names.  Can I suggest we create a working glossary where we list names that may be temporary but we also collect the relevant thoughts with those names.  As our thoughts mature, we can then decide what terminology best captures all the aspects we want to include.  I have no doubt we will eventually be dissatisfied with some of the names we carefully pick within the next week.  Let's concentrate now on establishing what we mean and later we'll deal with what we call it.

Ken

On Apr 1, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:

<Quote>
1. The term for the concept: I think it is safe to say that "service
consumer" is the term we should use for , well...  service consumers.
</Quote>
 
Would it make sense to consider the opposite of "service consumer" to be "service producer" (rather than "service provider")?



Kind Regards,

Joseph Chiusano

Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: Fri 4/1/2005 12:44 PM
To: Schuldt, Ron L
Cc: Matthew MacKenzie; john@crossconnections.ws; Chiusano Joseph; Thomas Erl; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [soa-rm] Requesters vs. Consumers


Ron:

Not yet.  There are two issues before us.

1. The term for the concept: I think it is safe to say that "service
consumer" is the term we should use for , well...  service consumers.

2. Is the concept in the reference model: Whether or not that is part of
the reference model is another issue.

Duane

Schuldt, Ron L wrote:

>Is it safe to say that we are reaching consensus that we need an element named "Consumer" or something similar for the reference model?
>
>Whether a given service provider ever actually provides its service to a consumer is perhaps irrelevant since I have to believe that all SOAs have the intent of providing a service to a consumer.
>
>Ron
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:44 AM
>To: john@crossconnections.ws
>Cc: Chiusano Joseph; Thomas Erl; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [soa-rm] Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [soa-rm] Requesters vs. Consumers
>
>
>Umm, yeah :-)
>
>The great thing about "consume" is that it doesn't get into specifics
>about the pattern of consumption.  The reference model need not care
>about how a service is consumed, just that it can be.
>
>-Matt
>john c hardin wrote:
>
> 
>
>>A consumer recipient of a 'push' is still a consumer, even though it
>>hasn't invoked or requested a service at the time of delivery.
>>Obviously at some point it has opted-in to the subscription, but not
>>necessarily at the time of delivery.
>>
>><the lurker speaks...>
>>
>>lots of traffic on this list right now... very good stuff
>>john hardin
>>
>>Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>>
>>   
>>
>>>Same problem.
>>>
>>>You can consume a service without specifically invoking it.
>>>-Matt
>>>
>>>Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>>>
>>>     
>>>
>>>>How about "Service Invokers"?
>>>>
>>>>Kind Regards,
>>>>Joseph Chiusano
>>>>Booz Allen Hamilton
>>>>Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       
>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] Sent: Thursday,
>>>>>March 31, 2005 9:19 PM
>>>>>To: Thomas Erl
>>>>>Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>>>Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Requesters vs. Consumers
>>>>>
>>>>>Consistency with other work aside, "request" strongly suggests how
>>>>>service consumption is initiated, and that is why I don't want to
>>>>>use it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>Matt
>>>>>Thomas Erl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's probably a good time to think about which term we    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>should use to 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>represent the potential element responsible for invoking or    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>initiating 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>a conversation with a service acting as the service provider.
>>>>>>Regardless of whether this becomes an "official" element within
>>>>>>our reference model, we will likely need to reference such an    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>element in 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>our documentation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Below are some considerations we can take into account:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- Both of the position papers submitted so far incorporate the
>>>>>>term "consumer". This term is also used in the ebSOA specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- The W3C Web Services Architecture document submitted by    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>Frank McCabe 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>uses the term "requester" and further qualifies it by suffixing it
>>>>>>with "entity" or "agent" to represent the owner and    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>software program 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>respectively. (Prior to the current version of the W3C    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>Working Note, 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>this document used the term "service requester" instead of    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>"requester
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>agent".)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- The W3C Web Services Glossary does not provide a definition for
>>>>>>"consumer", but defines "requester agent" as follows: "A software
>>>>>>agent that wishes to interact with a provider agent in order to
>>>>>>request that a task be performed on behalf of its owner - the
>>>>>>requester entity."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- The term "requester agent" is used in the W3C WSDL 2.0
>>>>>>specification, whereas "consumer" is used in the WSDL 1.1 version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- The definitions document submitted by Rebekah uses the term
>>>>>>"requester", most likely because the initial set of    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>definitions were 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>provided by Frank.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Given that we are seeking industry-wide acceptance of our
>>>>>>reference model, there may be a benefit to keeping our terminology
>>>>>>in    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>alignment 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>with terms already in use by established (albeit
>>>>>>implementation-specific) specifications. I personally have no
>>>>>>preference, but I do recommend we decide on one term and    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>then consider 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>adding a definition to our glossary. We may want to    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>leverage some of 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>the work performed by the W3C Working Group and decide    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>whether we also 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>need separate terms to distinguish owner from implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On a related note, we have not yet discussed the concept of    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>a service 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>or service agent assuming provider and requester/consumer    
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>>roles. Such 
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>>a concept would also affect our definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>>
>
> 
>

--
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources  - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
***********

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-883-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-883-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508