[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Groups - Rough notes taken during the last ebSOA meeting. (ebSOA-Elements.pdf) uploaded
Several of the threads I've been catching up on today are suggestive of the following conceptual division: Service Contract: Functional Description (syntax and semantics), External Interface Definition, etc Service Policy: Operational Description, Terms of Use, Method of Use, Required Security, etc Rebekah Metz Associate Booz Allen Hamilton Voice: (703) 377-1471 Fax: (703) 902-3457 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 3:29 PM > To: Rex Brooks > Cc: Chiusano Joseph; 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 > > I agree that Data Model may be an ill-advised term because it is too > easy to connect it with aspects of the service that are hidden from > users and thus of no immediate consequence to the SOA. I think what we > are talking about might be better described as the external interface > definition. > > As to semantics, I believe it is crucial that we include that a > mechanism MUST exist to indicate the semantics, otherwise it is > impossible to really use a service you have discovered for the first > time. Concepts in namespaces, tModels, and OWL-S may be useful here. > > To go further, I'd suggest the service description be liberally defined > to be *everything* (and, at the moment, I think I do mean everything) a > prospective user could need to access to determine (1) if the service > is of use (including whether the terms of use are acceptable) and (2) > if useful, how to use. Conversely, the user description should include > everything the service needs to access to determine whether the user is > authorized to use the service. > > The question would then be what constructs are necessary in an SOA to > support these "capabilities". > > Ken > > On Mar 31, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Rex Brooks wrote: > > > Data Models do include the notion of Semantics inherently, but as Joe > > points out, it seems out of scope for this RM. However, we do need to > > consider Semantic concerns for how we define and classify, if we > > classify, Services. > > > > Ciao, > > Rex > > > > At 7:39 AM -0500 3/31/05, Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >> <Quote> > >> An open ended question is "does the data model > >> include the notion of semantics?". I would like to hear comments back > >> on this matter. > >> </Quote> > >> > >> I wonder if the answer to this question has any bearing on our RM, or > >> if > >> it is out of scope no matter what the answer is? > >> Kind Regards, > >> Joseph Chiusano > >> Booz Allen Hamilton > >> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:33 PM > >>> To: Metz Rebekah > >>> Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org > >>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Groups - Rough notes taken during the > >>> last ebSOA meeting. (ebSOA-Elements.pdf) uploaded > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> *********** > >> > > >>> > > > > > > -- > > 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 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]