Re: [soa-rm] Opacity calumny

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

Agree, agree, agree.  This list is getting much too tame.

I would suggest that the concept of opacity is relevant to the RM, and the 
fact that there are tradeoffs and examples of tradeoffs is relevant to the 
RM.  I also think relating this to a/c/p is relevant to the RM.  Being an 
engineer, it is difficult to list all the problems and not propose 
solutions, but alas that is not part of the RM.  So what of this is 
appropriate for the RA?

Ken

At 05:09 PM 7/11/2005, Michael Stiefel wrote:
>I agree as well.
>
>Opacity is a design tradeoff and hence a concrete, not abstract issue. All 
>other things being equal more opacity is better than less, but in reality 
>you are trading off opacity for other things such as how much metadata you 
>publish and how much dependency you generate as a result.
>
>Michael
>
>At 04:31 PM 7/11/2005, Ken Laskey wrote:
>>Frank,
>>
>>To agree even more violently, this raises (and I allude to a little in 
>>the draft) the question of how to provide a means to publish metadata as 
>>it is found to be needed but in a way that supports a consistent use of 
>>the metadata in evaluating an entity against unambiguously stated a/c/p, 
>>which themselves can be augmented and will evolve to meet business needs 
>>of the users (where if I am a design engineer, my business need is to 
>>find the technically correct solution engine).
>>
>>This represents a much ignored need as well as a terrible run-on 
>>sentence. :-)
>>
>>Ken
>>
>>At 04:10 PM 7/11/2005, Frank McCabe wrote:
>>>Ken:
>>>
>>>   I think we are in violent agreement. The essence of the Java
>>>execution engine example is that it is precisely that the
>>>implementation is important -- not whether or not its good style!!
>>>
>>>   Incidentally, if it is important to know who wrote the
>>>implementation, then that too should be part of the public description.
>>>
>>>   Perhaps another aspect concerns the on-the-wire vs. resource model
>>>of service semantics. In the resource pov, issues of implementation
>>>(transparent or otherwise) figure prominently. In the on-the-wire
>>>pov, you only look at the message traffic; and do not even consider
>>>the implementation.
>>>
>>>  They are related of course: a message is valid if it is well formed
>>>(in some communication language) and if the implied predicate is
>>>satisfied (there really is money in your bank account).
>>>
>>>  But, a Service Oriented Semantics (SOS) would focus on the on-the- 
>>> wire interpretation and require that the service participants
>>>faithfully reflect the messages in their systems. I.e., it is similar
>>>to the model/proof theory distinction: provided that the service
>>>implementation is a correct Interpretation of the communication, the
>>>participants can focus on the Formulae being communicated.
>>>
>>>That all being said, there are definite limits to descriptions. I.e.,
>>>there will always be unstated (unstateable?) assumptions that are
>>>required to be shared for successful interactions.
>>>
>>>Frank
>>>
>>>On Jul 11, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>>>
>>>>Frank,
>>>>
>>>>Opacity/transparency is not a dimension on which to distinguish
>>>>services;  it is more of a fallacy that we may need to explain our
>>>>way around.  This ties in very much with what I've tried to say
>>>>about metadata and how metadata characterizing an instance is often
>>>>the basis upon which the instance is evaluated in the context of
>>>>assumptions, constraints, and policies (a/c/p) of providers and
>>>>consumers.  In some circumstances, the amount of information that
>>>>needs to be published about an entity may maintain little in the
>>>>way of its opacity, but that is more likely related to a/c/p than
>>>>it is to WSDL.
>>>>
>>>>See more inline.
>>>>
>>>>At 03:23 PM 7/11/2005, Frank McCabe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I read the revised section on services. And an issue that made me
>>>>>uneasy before has resurfaced -- about opacity.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think that the opacity/transparency dimension is not a good basis
>>>>>for distinguishing services. I am aware of the intuition: that
>>>>>somehow when you use a service you should not have to worry about the
>>>>>implementation. But what does it mean to say: "the implementation is
>>>>>hidden from the service consumer"? If the service is to add lists of
>>>>>numbers then its implementation is hidden provided numbers are added
>>>>>up correctly. (I.e., we should not care about whether its in C++ or
>>>>>C#; multi-threaded or federated).
>>>>
>>>>So here the service adds numbers and while we can imagine what is
>>>>happening, we care no more of the specific than we do when we punch
>>>>numbers into a calculator.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But, some services are explicitly about implementation issues:
>>>>>security services, workload distribution services, java remote
>>>>>execution engine services etc. etc. I.e., it is of the essence that
>>>>>to use a Java remote execution service, you have to send it a java
>>>>>class to execute. In that sense, the implementation is critical.
>>>>
>>>>But you call a java remote execution engine when you have an
>>>>appropriate java class to execute.  If it is a general service that
>>>>is implemented as a java remote execution then the WS interface
>>>>should more likely be a collector of information that (inside the
>>>>service) is rewritten as the necessary java class.  You could
>>>>require a java class as input but I'm not sure that would be
>>>>considered "good style".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A clearer distinction is public/private. A service is characterized
>>>>>by a public description of its functionality. The public description
>>>>>should be sufficient to be able to successfully interact with the
>>>>>service; and no additional information should be required.
>>>>
>>>>Not really because what you consider part of the private
>>>>information I might consider very pertinent to deciding whether
>>>>your service is suitable for my purposes, i.e. I need it to be
>>>>public.  For an extreme example, I used to work for your company
>>>>and I know one of your developers is clearly incompetent and I'd
>>>>never use anything that idiot touched.
>>>>
>>>>The challenge is in defining "should be sufficient to be able to
>>>>successfully interact with the service".  I think we need to
>>>>discuss opacity in these terms because it is strongly connected
>>>>with SOA and may be more useful as a vague concept than as an
>>>>absolute measure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Frank
>>>>
>>>>Ken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>-----------
>>>>   /   Ken
>>>>Laskey
>>>>\
>>>>  |    MITRE Corporation, M/S H305    phone:  703-983-7934   |
>>>>  |    7515 Colshire Drive                    fax:
>>>>703-983-1379   |
>>>>   \   McLean VA
>>>>22102-7508                                              /
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>------------
>>
>>--
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>   /   Ken 
>> Laskey                                                                \
>>  |    MITRE Corporation, M/S H305    phone:  703-983-7934   |
>>  |    7515 Colshire Drive                    fax:      703-983-1379   |
>>   \   McLean VA 22102-7508                                              /
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>>
>
>

--
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   Ken 
Laskey                                                                \
  |    MITRE Corporation, M/S H305    phone:  703-983-7934   |
  |    7515 Colshire Drive                    fax:      703-983-1379   |
   \   McLean VA 22102-7508                                              /
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------