Re: [soa-rm] Definition of "Service Consumer"

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

Rex,

Could I rephrase your statement to say something like:

We should not go out of our way to make our descriptions consistent  
with every possible non-IT situation but we should also not shy away  
from making it generally applicable in cases where it might be fairly  
straightforward to do so.  This would allow for connections that make  
our work more accessible and more usable.  It might also provide us  
with some insight into what we are trying to describe in the IT realm.

Ken


On Apr 8, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:

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