[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
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
John Yunker of Amazon is a member of our TC and on this list. Perhaps he can answer your questions. Duane Sotudeh, Kooros (US - McLean) wrote: >Some aspects of the web service marketplace concept have already been >commercialized with the likes of Grand Central and StrikeIron. >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] > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]