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

["Christopher Bashioum" <cbashioum@mitre.org>]

This is a good point.  Does an SOA imply networked resources vs. resources
that are in the same process space?  If so, then that implication should
somehow be part of the RM.  In other words, how does the RM show that
Service Oriented is different than, say, Object Oriented?  

I had this same discussion with some folks the other day.  One of them was
proposing that you could have an SOA with all of the services running on the
same processor.  My response was "maybe, but the services would have to be
constructed in a way that they can just as easily exist anywhere on the
network".  So ... If part of the definition of a service is that it can be
reached across the network, doesn't that imply messaging?

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 3:46 PM
To: Ken Laskey
Cc: Duane Nickull; Metz Rebekah; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Groups - Rough notes taken during the last ebSOA
meeting. (ebSOA-Elements.pdf) uploaded

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"?
-matt

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?
>
> Ken
>
>
> 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  
>>> traffic
>>> on the list, so I apologize if my comments are already outdated.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  
>>> term
>>> ranging from semantics ("what is meant") to syntax (vis a vis the  
>>> WSDL)
>>> and also that the WSDL is the data model is the contract.  I would  
>>> argue
>>> that the contract is the same as the data model.  However, I'd have  
>>> to
>>> 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  
>>> the
>>> message.
>> 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.
>>
>> Duane
>>
>> -- ***********
>> 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
>
>