Re: [soa-rm] [Amazon Patent Filing on Web Services Marketplace] RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure 2-1

[John Harby <jharby@gmail.com>]

But there is a relationship. Obviously if they were equivalent then
Amazon would never be able to acquire theirs.

On 8/4/05, Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> wrote:
> The reference you sent is actually quite different than the Amazon
> patent. The Amazon patent is about a marketplace, while the reference
> you sent is regarding the technical capabilities. The Amazone patent
> assumes that the technical capabilities are now there for it to
> capitalize on.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Joseph Chiusano
> Booz Allen Hamilton
> O: 703-902-6923
> C: 202-251-0731
> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Harby [mailto:jharby@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:44 AM
> > To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [Amazon Patent Filing on Web Services
> > Marketplace] RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2,
> > line 201, Figure 2-1
> >
> > This has been going on for awhile (although this earlier one
> > was more generic):
> >
> > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HIT
> > OFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=18&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=p
> > txt&s1=Hewlett-Packard.ASNM.&s2='web+service'&OS=AN/Hewlett-Pa
> > ckard+AND+"web+service"&RS=AN/Hewlett-Packard+AND+"web+service"
> >
> > On 8/4/05, Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Sotudeh, Kooros (US - McLean) [mailto:csotudeh@deloitte.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:03 AM
> > > > To: Chiusano Joseph; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [Amazon Patent Filing on Web Services
> > > > Marketplace] RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line
> > > > 201, Figure 2-1
> > > > Importance: High
> > > >
> > > > Some aspects of the web service marketplace concept have already
> > > > been commercialized with the likes of Grand Central and
> > StrikeIron.
> > >
> > > Exactly - see David Linthicum's recent blog entry on this:
> > >
> > > http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/eai/cto/archives/005190.asp
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > Joseph Chiusano
> > > Booz Allen Hamilton
> > > O: 703-902-6923
> > > C: 202-251-0731
> > > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> > >
> > >
> > > > Admittedly, still in early stages of gaining critical
> > mass to become
> > > > a true marketplace.  Will be interesting to see how far
> > the Amazon
> > > > patent application goes and its impact on the other potential
> > > > players.
> > > > Personally, I don't like the idea of a patent for this concept.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:52 AM
> > > > To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: [soa-rm] [Amazon Patent Filing on Web Services
> > Marketplace]
> > > > RE:
> > > > [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure 2-1
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if anyone has seen this yet (published late last
> > week)[1]:
> > > >
> > > > "Amazon files for Web services patent" - excerpts:
> > > >
> > > > - "Amazon.com has received a public airing of its patent
> > application
> > > > for an online marketplace where consumers search and pay for Web
> > > > services."
> > > >
> > > > - "Amazon, in its latest filing, is seeking to patent its
> > idea for
> > > > creating a marketplace where third-party Web services
> > providers can
> > > > link up with consumers."
> > > >
> > > > A correction at the end of [1] states that the patent was
> > actually
> > > > filed last year, but the patent application was published at the
> > > > time of the article.
> > > >
> > > > I bring this up now in relation to the 5/25 e-mail below
> > because Rex
> > > > had posed the question of a marketplace-type approach
> > (though he did
> > > > not use the exact term "marketplace"), and I responded that such
> > > > "service markets"
> > > > would eventually exist, but in the far future. Note that
> > the Amazon
> > > > patent has not been granted, so my prediction may still
> > turn out to
> > > > be correct.;)
> > > >
> > > > Joe
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > http://news.com.com/Amazon+files+for+Web+services+patent/2100-
> > > > 1038_3-580
> > > > 8591.html
> > > >
> > > > Joseph Chiusano
> > > > Booz Allen Hamilton
> > > > O: 703-902-6923
> > > > C: 202-251-0731
> > > > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:43 PM
> > > > > To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect
> > 2, line 201,
> > > > > Figure 2-1
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 1:39 PM
> > > > > > To: McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2,
> > > > line 201,
> > > > > > Figure 2-1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not to cause too much more roiling, but it just occurred to
> > > > > me that,
> > > > > > as a potential consumer who does not find a specific
> > > > > service ready to
> > > > > > be consumed, might we not also want to allow consumers a
> > > > > mechanism in
> > > > > > our RM by which they can advertise for a service? If so,
> > > > what do we
> > > > > > call that?
> > > > >
> > > > > eBay. ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > In all honesty, I was actually half-serious - I foresee the
> > > > day where
> > > > > large-scale "services markets" will come into existence. In
> > > > fact, if
> > > > > you add a "Priceline" aspect to it, a service consumer can
> > > > search for
> > > > > a service whose price (perhaps per transaction) meets its
> > > > requirement.
> > > > > But we're very far from that.
> > > > >
> > > > > The rest is another thread, on another list.
> > > > >
> > > > > In summary, I think the notion you mention is far-future -
> > > > too far to
> > > > > be mentioned in our spec.
> > > > >
> > > > > Joe
> > > > >
> > > > > Joseph Chiusano
> > > > > Booz Allen Hamilton
> > > > > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > Where in the
> > > > > > model does it belong? It is much like a service request for
> > > > > > which there is not at a given point in time, an
> > available service.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmmnnn?
> > > > > > Rex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At 10:13 AM -0400 5/25/05,
> > <McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > >I am in agreement with this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >This implies then that there is no real dependency on
> > > > Service from
> > > > > > >Service Description other than to allow a possible link to
> > > > > > the service
> > > > > > >(a placeholder if you will)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >From:    Christopher Bashioum [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org]
> > > > > > >Sent:    May 25, 2005 9:05 AM
> > > > > > >To:      soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > > >Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus
> > > > > > Fabric.Stop It!"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  I would think that one would want to be able to describe
> > > > > a service
> > > > > > >independent of whether or not it is consumable at a given
> > > > > > point in time
> > > > > > >to enable the concurrent development of services.  In
> > > > > which case you
> > > > > > >would want the service description to indicate whether
> > > > or not the
> > > > > > >service was available for consumption (and if not, then
> > > > > > maybe the target date for availability).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >From: McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca
> > > > > > >[mailto:McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca]
> > > > > > >Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:14 PM
> > > > > > >Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > > >Subject: RE: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus
> > > > > > Fabric.Stop It!"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Duane,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I agree with you. There is no point describing a service if
> > > > > > a link to
> > > > > > >its endpoint cannot be found.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Does this then imply that we have a "must-have" relationship
> > > > > > which is
> > > > > > >far stricter than just a dependency?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Finally, why describe a service if it cannot be consumed,
> > > > > for future
> > > > > > >reservations maybe similar to XML namespaces?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Comments anyone...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Wes
> > > > > > >  -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >From:    Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
> > > > > > >Sent:    May 24, 2005 2:56 PM
> > > > > > >To:      Michael Stiefel
> > > > > > >Cc:      soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > > >Subject: Re: [soa-rm] David Linthicum Says: "ESB versus
> > > > > > Fabric.Stop
> > > > > > >It!"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Endpoints are part of a service description IMO.
> > > > Orchestration of
> > > > > > >multiple services is out of the scope of  the core RM,
> > > > > much the same
> > > > > > >way as how multiple houses are positioned next to each other
> > > > > > in a grid
> > > > > > >layout is un-necessary in order to define a RM for house.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >A service or house do not have to exist amongst multiple
> > > > houses in
> > > > > > >order to be services/houses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Duane
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Michael Stiefel wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>  Could we then conceive of endpoints and orchestration
> > > > in such a
> > > > > > >> fashion? Or is the critical point aspect or attribute in
> > > > > > which case
> > > > > > >> endpoint qualifies, but orchestration does not.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>  To make a grammatical analogy, the RM defines a
> > > > > substantive, and
> > > > > > >> therefore adjectives (aspects and attributes) are part of
> > > > > > the RM, but
> > > > > > >> verbs (actions) are not.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>  (side note: I know verbs have aspect, but we are not
> > > > > > using the term
> > > > > > >> that way).
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>  Michael
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>  At 02:34 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>  Since Structural Integrity is an aspect of all houses,
> > > > > > it could be
> > > > > > >>> part of a RM as an abstract concept.  Even if you do not
> > > > > > explicitly
> > > > > > >>> design a house to have a certain set of
> > structural integrity
> > > > > > >>> parameters, it still does.  It is not a component itself,
> > > > > > just an
> > > > > > >>> aspect or attribute.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>  Duane
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>  Michael Stiefel wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>  I thought of structural integrity in terms of the
> > > > > entire house,
> > > > > > >>>> not  just a wall, but I think your point remains
> > the same.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>  Granted that each architecture needs to specify its
> > > > > structural
> > > > > > >>>> integrity, but shouldn't the RM have the concept of
> > > > structural
> > > > > > >>>> integrity since it is an abstract concept shared
> > by all RAs.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>  Michael
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>  At 02:06 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>  The RM does not necessarily have to get into
> > > > > cardinality rules
> > > > > > >>>>> IMO,
> > > > > > >  >>>> unless they are very obvious.  In the case of a
> > > > > > house, you may
> > > > > > > not  >>>> make consistent rules stating that every house
> > > > > > has to have
> > > > > > > at least
> > > > > > >>>>>  three walls since a wall can be curved or any number
> > > > > of walls
> > > > > > >>>>> from
> > > > > > >>>>>  3 up.  You may be able to infer from the relationships
> > > > > > that there
> > > > > > >>>>> is a certain cardinality if the RM for a house said
> > > > > > that each room
> > > > > > >>>>> has one door.
> > > > > > >>>>>  That would declare an association between the number
> > > > > > of rooms to
> > > > > > >>>>> the number of doors.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>  Structural integrity is an aspect of a wall,
> > which must
> > > > > > >>>>> be specialized for each architecture based on a number
> > > > > > criteria.  The
> > > > > > >>>>> RM declares what the wall is and its' purpose, the
> > > > > > architect has
> > > > > > >>>>> the job of specifying the actual walls to be
> > used for each
> > > > > > >>>>> architecture and ensuring they map back to requirements.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>  You are right - analogies are not definitions,
> > > > > however I have
> > > > > > >>>>> found  them very useful in conveying the meaning.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>  Duane
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>  Michael Stiefel wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>  Does the RM understand that some of the concepts are
> > > > > > unique and
> > > > > > >>>>>> some multiple (without an exact number, you could have
> > > > > > >>>>>> one circular wall, 3 walls, 4 walls, etc.)?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>  Using your analogy, how does the RM deal with
> > > > > > concepts such as
> > > > > > >>>>>> structural integrity. Structural integrity would
> > > > > apply to all
> > > > > > >>>>>> house RAs. In my way of thinking concepts such as
> > > > > > endpoints or
> > > > > > >>>>>> orchestration are analogous to this.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>  In the analogy I would see the reference
> > architecture as
> > > > > > >>>>>> Colonial  American Reference Architecture, or
> > even more
> > > > > > >>>>>> specifically  Colonial American Cape Ann, or
> > > > > Colonial American
> > > > > > >>>>>> Greek Revival  reference architectures.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>  Analogies are useful, but they are not definitions.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>  Michael
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>  At 12:56 PM 5/24/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>  RA means Reference Architecture.  As per the
> > > > > > previous emails on
> > > > > > >>>>>>> this subject, it is a generalized architecture.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>  The relationship is that architects use a RM as a
> > > > > > guiding model
> > > > > > >>>>>>> when building a RA.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>  For example, if you are architecting a house, an RM
> > > > > > may explain
> > > > > > >>>>>>> the concepts of gravity, a 3D environment, walls,
> > > > > > foundations,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> floors, roofs, ceilings etc.  It is abstract however.
> > > > > >  There is
> > > > > > >>>>>>> nothing specific like a wall with measurements such
> > > > > > as 8 feet
> > > > > > >>>>>>> high.  Note that the RM has only one each of these
> > > > > > things - it
> > > > > > >>>>>>> does not have 4, 16, 23 walls, just one as a concept.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>  The architect may uses this model to create
> > a specific
> > > > > > >>>>>>> architecture for a specific house (accounting for
> > > > > > such things as
> > > > > > >>>>>>> property, incline, climate etc) or an architect MAY
> > > > > > elect to use
> > > > > > >>>>>>> it to build a more generalized reference
> > > > architecture.  The
> > > > > > >>>>>>> latter is often done by architects who design houses.
> > > > > >  When they
> > > > > > >>>>>>> sell a house, they must often re-architect the RA for
> > > > > > specific
> > > > > > >>>>>>> implementation details such as incline of land,
> > > > > > climate, facing
> > > > > > >>>>>>> the sun etc..
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>  So why do we need a RM?  Simple - we now have
> > > > > > logical divisions
> > > > > > >>>>>>> amongst the components of a house and what they mean.
> > > > > >  That way,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> when a company says " we are a flooring
> > > > company..", that is
> > > > > > >>>>>>> meaningful since we all know what that means.  The
> > > > > > same applies
> > > > > > >>>>>>> to a roofing company.  Without the basic consensus on
> > > > > > >>>>>>> the logical  divisions, a roofing contractor may also
> > > > > > >>>>>>> try
> > > > > > to include
> > > > > > >>>>>>> the  ceiling and walls as part of his offerings.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>  That would not work and not allow the general
> > > > > contractor to
> > > > > > >>>>>>> build  a house very easily since there may not be
> > > > > > consensus upon
> > > > > > >>>>>>> the  division of labor and components to
> > build the house.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>  Do you guys think an explanation of this nature may
> > > > > > be good to
> > > > > > >>>>>>> include in the introduction section?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>  Duane
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>  Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>  What is an RA? What is the relationship between an
> > > > > > RM and an RA?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>  What is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>  the RM->RA path for SOA?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>  Matt also submitted last week (I believe) that we
> > > > > > may not even
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> need an
> > > > > > >  >>>>>>> RA. How should that change our notion of
> > RM, if at all?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>  Joe
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>  Joseph Chiusano
> > > > > > >  >>>>>>> Booz Allen Hamilton
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>  Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Rex Brooks
> > > > > > President, CEO
> > > > > > Starbourne Communications Design
> > > > > > GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> > > > > > Berkeley, CA 94702
> > > > > > Tel: 510-849-2309
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
> > > > information intended for a specific individual and
> > purpose, and is
> > > > protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient,
> > you should
> > > > delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of
> > > > this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is
> > strictly
> > > > prohibited. [v.E.1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
>