[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Architectural Scope of Reference Model
Duane: I think that there is one major thing missing from your list; I am not sure currently how to properly characterize it but I am referring to the document centric processing model. Perhaps this fits in with your datamodel; I am not sure. One of the major constraints and drivers for scalability is the idea of large grained communication or service invocation (however that it done :)) Without this, SOA reduces to a generic distributed system. Being more precise about document centric processing is difficult; but I think it is something like there not being 1-1 mapping between service requesters and service providers. In general it is 1-many; or many-1 or even many-many; all held together by a common document. In Web Service land, this was where intermediaries came in to play. But, in reality what we are talking about is a separation between the data that is communicated and the service(s) applied to it. That leads to a concept of service composition, choreography, etc. etc. Frank On Apr 11, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Duane Nickull wrote: > I would like to use the term "advertising" for now as a placeholder, > knowing full well we may all agree another term may be substituted > later. I think that we all conceptually agree that the premise is > "to make the existence of a service known to all consumers on a > fabric" or some variation and that "advertising" may or may not be the > best term to represent the abstract concept. > > To recap, it seems that this concept is one of the pillars of SOA. > It's implementation may take many forms {(pull, push) > (publish/subscribe) (multi-cast, unicast, broadcast, point > cast)(...)}. > > That means that we have reached consensus (correct me if I am > mistaken) that the SOA RM contains the following elements: > > 1. Services > 2. Service Descriptions > 3. Advertising/whateverwecallit - the ability to make the existence of > a service and/or details thereof available to consumers on a fabric > 4. Datamodel/whateverwecallit (includes the abstract notion of a set > of logical instances of data a.k.a. an abstract concept of a message, > possibly includes the concept of semantics) > > We have not all agreed to the following things, but have no > substantial disagreement they are not in the SOA RM: > > 5. Contract - is it really a policy? Is it a core part of the > reference model. If it is a policy, does it imply the abstract > functionality represented in the security component of a concrete > architecture? > > The next set if items are likely not included in the core RM, yet may > be mentioned to illustrate functionality. > > 6. Service consumer > > I am very impressed by the progress to date (assuming I have not > jumped too far to conclusions). > Duane > > > > > > Smith, Martin wrote: > >> Ken - - >> Register? (implies some official or at least "well known" place >> where things are registered.) >> Publish? (more general term without the commercial/spam connotation) >> To me, "advertise" implies "push"; register/discover and >> publish/subscribe are "pull." Advertise also implies use of a >> variety of communications methods, including registration (e.g., in >> the Yellow Pages) but also product placement, spam, etc. that might >> be considered dysfunctional. However, I have no problem putting aside >> this issue until (much) later. >> Martin >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] >> Sent: Mon 4/11/2005 9:28 PM >> To: Breininger, Kathryn R >> Cc: Duane Nickull; Chiusano Joseph; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org; >> scott@justiceintegration.com; Francis McCabe >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Architectural Scope of Reference Model >> >> >> >> I am of two minds as I compose this email. The first is could we >> replace "advertise" with something like "communicate the service >> description"? The second is let's call it advertise for now, see >> what it actually means, and then rename it if desirable later. >> >> Take your pick :-) >> >> Ken >> >> On Apr 11, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Breininger, Kathryn R wrote: >> >> >>> I also wonder about the term "advertising", especially given the >>> audience we are targeting for the high level document. "Advertising" >>> has an implied meaning to the average audience, whereas "Discovery" >>> implies I have found something through some means, often a search or >>> browsing or serendipity or even word of mouth (using the big picture >>> here that agents include humans). Does "advertising" limit the ways >>> in >>> which I (or an agent) become aware of and use a service? >>> >>> >>> Kathryn Breininger >>> Boeing Library Services >>> 425-965-0182 phone >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com] >>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 12:54 PM >>> To: Ken Laskey >>> Cc: Duane Nickull; Chiusano Joseph; scott@justiceintegration.com; >>> soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Architectural Scope of Reference Model >>> >>> >>> Is discovery of the essence or advertising? If I discover how to use >>> your service by some kind of reverse engineering -- you did not >>> advertise it but I discovered it -- and can therefore use it! Frank >>> >>> On Apr 11, 2005, at 12:00 PM, Ken Laskey wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Quick, write that down some place we won't lose it. :-) >>>> >>>> Ken >>>> >>>> At 02:42 PM 4/11/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ken: >>>>> >>>>> "Advertising" is an abstract concept. I would define it as "a >>>>> methodology to convey awareness of (the existence of) a service(s) >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> all consumers on a fabric". Does this sound like a good place >>>>> holder >>>>> >>>>> for the glossary? >>>>> >>>>> Discovery is an aspect facilitated by advertising. A consumer >>>>> "discovers" a service because the service's existence was >>>>> advertised >>>>> >>>>> to the consumer or the service description was inspected by the >>>>> consumer. >>>>> Discovery does not automatically imply a right to use the service. >>>>> >>>>> There are multiple ways to implement a mechanism for discovery. >>>>> 811g >>>>> uses a radio signal broadcast, web services uses UDDI, ebXML uses >>>>> CPP's accessed via an ebXML registry-repository, CORBA uses an ORB, >>>>> J2EE uses RMI Registry, Windows uses a registry..... >>>>> >>>>> Duane >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ken Laskey wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> How a capability is provided is a design issue but that a >>>>>> capability >>>>>> exists is certainly in the purview of the RM. While I might for RM >>>>>> sake indicate a vaguely defined box that needs more definition to >>>>>> ever see software, that vaguely defined box must be in the RM or >>>>>> we >>>>>> >>>>>> lose that aspect and have an incomplete description. I can give >>>>>> you >>>>>> >>>>>> a half dozen ways to do discovery, but is a discovery box that can >>>>>> notionally support all of these an elementary necessity for the >>>>>> RM? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. I'm still struggling over discovery vs. advertising, so >>>>>> please >>>>>> read the above with whichever one makes most sense to you. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 31, 2005, at 7:32 AM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <Quote> >>>>>> I suspect when we get to specifying what gives a service unique >>>>>> identity, >>>>>> </Quote> >>>>>> >>>>>> Will we ever reach that point? That is, is the question of >>>>>> whether >>>>>> or not a service has a unique identity within the scope of a >>>>>> RM? >>>>>> My take is no - it's a design issue, and potentially an >>>>>> architecture issue depending on how such a unique identity >>>>>> needs >>>>>> to be generated/maintained (i.e. may have an "identity engine" >>>>>> component in an architecture - not to be confused with identity >>>>>> management for security). >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>> Joseph Chiusano >>>>>> Booz Allen Hamilton >>>>>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Scott Came [mailto:scott@justiceintegration.com] >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:44 PM >>>>>> To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Architectural Scope of Reference Model >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello everyone, I've been lurking so far, but let me jump in on >>>>>> this one... >>>>>> >>>>>> Thomas' key question, as I read his post, was not whether >>>>>> messages >>>>>> should be part of the RM, but whether service requestors should >>>>>> >>>>>> be. >>>>>> >>>>>> In my view, having services without service requestors doesn't >>>>>> make a lot of sense. So I would like to suggest that service >>>>>> requestors are a proper element in the RM. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you grant that, then the relationship between a service >>>>>> requestor and a service implies the exchange of some >>>>>> information >>>>>> (in the general case). We might not call that a "message", but >>>>>> >>> it >>> >>>>>> does exist. Is there another, more appropriately abstract, name >>>>>> for the elements of the service's interface that specify the >>>>>> structure of information exchange that occurs between requestor >>>>>> and service? >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking at it another way (and forgive me if this is getting >>>>>> ahead >>>>>> of where we should be)...I suspect when we get to specifying >>>>>> >>> what >>> >>>>>> gives a service unique identity, it may well be a (perhaps >>>>>> qualified) name plus a set of interface elements >>>>>> (operations/behaviors, if you will, and the "signature" of >>>>>> those >>>>>> operations). If so, then we'll need a name for the elements >>>>>> that >>>>>> represent the input and output parameters (again, forgive the >>>>>> "concrete" terminology) of each operation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards... >>>>>> --Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott Came >>>>>> President and Principal Consultant >>>>>> Justice Integration Solutions, Inc. >>>>>> Olympia, Washington >>>>>> scott@justiceintegration.com >>>>>> http://www.justiceintegration.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thomas: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for this very elegant summary! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the answer may be in the definition of a "reference >>>>>>> >>>>>> model" vs. >>>>>> >>>>>>> "architecture". I think case studies will help clear up this >>>>>>> confusion. A reference model will normally not contain >>>>>>> >>>>>> "messages" as a >>>>>> >>>>>>> component. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Please look at the OSI Reference model. This is a >>>>>>> >>>>>> communication >>>>>> >>>>>>> stack yet it does not contain messages: >>>>>>> http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~jphb/comms/std.7layer.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This does not contain any "message" although messages will >>>>>>> >>>>>> occur in >>>>>> >>>>>>> implementations using the reference model >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. The ITA Reference Model likewise does not have "messages": >>>>>>> http://www.ewita.com/earlywork/itarefr.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. RCS Reference Model >>>>>>> http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/documents/messina/euro_cast.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again - no messages even though there is an element marked >>>>>>> "Communications" in figure one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reference Model should not contain "messages" as a >>>>>>> >>>>>> component. That >>>>>> >>>>>>> belongs in architecture or implementations based on the >>>>>>> >>>>>> reference >>>>>> >>>>>>> model. I have never encountered one reference model with >>>>>>> >>>>>> concrete terms >>>>>> >>>>>>> in it. If it had such, it would not be abstract. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We must think abstract, not concrete. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Duane Nickull >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thomas Erl wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some thoughts regarding the on-going discussion of whether a >>>>>>>> >>>>>> message >>>>>> >>>>>>>> element should be part of our reference model: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As per our chosen definition of architecture, in order to >>>>>>>> >>>>>> describe >>>>>> >>>>>>>> service-oriented architecture we need to: >>>>>>>> 1. Define elements that comprise the structure of a system. >>>>>>>> 2. Define external properties of these elements. >>>>>>>> 3. Define relationships between these elements. >>>>>>>> 4. Define the overall structure of the system. >>>>>>>> (not necessarily in this order) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Starting with the first point, different element collections >>>>>>>> >>>>>> have been >>>>>> >>>>>>>> proposed in the two position papers submitted so far. As has >>>>>>>> >>>>>> been >>>>>> >>>>>>>> discussed, the MacKenzie/Nickull paper does not identify a >>>>>>>> >>>>>> message >>>>>> >>>>>>>> element, whereas Kohring's does. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A related difference I noticed when reviewing these papers is >>>>>>>> >>>>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kohring's establishes a broader range of SOA elements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Specifically, >>>>>> >>>>>>>> both service provider and requestor (consumer) roles are >>>>>>>> >>>>>> separately >>>>>> >>>>>>>> identified and described. As mentioned in item #3 above, we >>>>>>>> >>>>>> are >>>>>> >>>>>>>> required to define the relationship between the elements we >>>>>>>> >>>>>> define. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Therefore, it makes sense that this paper includes a separate >>>>>>>> >>>>>> element >>>>>> >>>>>>>> (message) that can be used to help describe the relationship >>>>>>>> >>>>>> between a >>>>>> >>>>>>>> service and its requestor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The elements identified in the MacKenzie/Nickull paper are: >>>>>>>> - Service >>>>>>>> - Service Description >>>>>>>> - A form of advertisement to facilitate discoverability. >>>>>>>> - Service Contract >>>>>>>> - Data Model >>>>>>>> These elements form a narrower architectural scope, leading >>>>>>>> >>>>>> to a >>>>>> >>>>>>>> proposed architecture that revolves primarily around the >>>>>>>> >>>>>> service (or a >>>>>> >>>>>>>> service assuming the provider role). Because a service >>>>>>>> >>>>>> requestor is >>>>>> >>>>>>>> not explicitly identified as a separate element, it makes >>>>>>>> >>>>>> sense >>>>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>>>> an element representing some unit of communication (message >>>>>>>> >>> or >>> >>>>>>>> otherwise) is also not identified. Within this model's scope, >>>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>>>> definition of a relationship between a service and its >>>>>>>> >>>>>> requestor >>>>>> >>>>>>>> (beyond details implied by description, contract, data model, >>>>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>>>> advertisement elements) is not a requirement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe that in order to address the issue of whether a >>>>>>>> >>>>>> message is a >>>>>> >>>>>>>> legitimate element within the reference model, we should >>>>>>>> >>> begin >>> >>>>>>>> by clearly defining the scope of our abstract architecture. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Given that >>>>>> >>>>>>>> we are establishing core elements that are expected to be >>>>>>>> >>>>>> present in >>>>>> >>>>>>>> all forms of SOA, this raises the question: Does an >>>>>>>> >>>>>> architecture >>>>>> >>>>>>>> require the presence of both a service provider and a service >>>>>>>> requestor (the coffee shop and the patron) in order to be >>>>>>>> >>>>>> classified >>>>>> >>>>>>>> "service-oriented"? If yes, we must define this relationship. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> To >>>>>> >>>>>>>> properly do so, we very well may need to further identify and >>>>>>>> >>>>>> define a >>>>>> >>>>>>>> separate element to represent an abstract unit of >>>>>>>> >>>>>> communication >>>>>> passed >>>>>> >>>>>>>> between them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> *********** >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> / >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -- >>> >>>> ----------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >> ------------------ >> Ken Laskey >> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-883-7934 >> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-883-1379 >> McLean VA 22102-7508 >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > *********** > 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 > *********** >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]