[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Amazon.com and Hurricane Katrina - Service Context? Service "Veneer"?
Lol - sorry about that. I started the thread:) Kind Regards, Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton O: 703-902-6923 C: 202-251-0731 Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 6:25 PM > Cc: 'SOA-RM' > Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Amazon.com and Hurricane Katrina - > Service Context? Service "Veneer"? > > Katrina!! > > With a "K" guys. > > > > > > Peter F Brown wrote: > > > Excuse my stupidity but can someone on this thread explain why this > > Amazon "offering" is simply *not* just a distinct service? > I think we > > are "over egging the pudding" as we used to say in the English > > Midlands... > > Peter > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > *From:* Michael Stiefel [mailto:development@reliablesoftware.com] > > *Sent:* 05 September 2005 17:11 > > *To:* Ken Laskey; SOA-RM > > *Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] Amazon.com and Hurricane Catrina - Service > > Context? Service "Veneer"? > > > > I agree that for the RM that line does not exist. > > > > Michael > > > > At 10:11 AM 9/5/2005, Ken Laskey wrote: > > > >> Steve, > >> > >> I believe we are saying the same thing. If the service is > specifying > >> the item to be purchased by UPC, it is the same service in a > >> different context. In this case, the donation would be > added to the > >> general catalog and the user interaction would be the same. I'd > >> consider the "broader service" to be what I call the underlying > >> capability, i.e. the money collection in return for something. The > >> consumer sees the real world effect of that capability > existing and > >> there being a service to access it, but never sees the capability > >> itself. > >> > >> However, note that with both Amazon and Apple there are > new means to > >> invoke the service (special links) and the service > interacts with the > >> consumer in ways different than the usual. For these > reasons I'd say > >> that for the new context Amazon and Apple created new > services (where > >> here I mean services in the SOA context) to repurpose existing > >> capability (the provisioning of which may be called a > service in the > >> more general business context). I'm not sure what Amazon and Apple > >> did made use of any SOA magic but it was nice reuse of capability. > >> > >> Does this bugger things up? I think it does only if we need to be > >> definitive when you cross the line from reusing a service > to having a > >> new one. I'm not sure for the SOA-RM that we need to draw > that line > >> or even acknowledge that it may exist. > >> > >> Ken > >> > >> > >> On Sep 5, 2005, at 4:37 AM, Jones, Steve G wrote: > >> > >>> Again not to raise old threads... but > >>> > >>> > >>> This for me is the concept of context, the context has > changed which > >>> means the impact of the service is different, its > implementation and > >>> execution may however remain identical. So the > "Collection" service > >>> in this case always results in Money being taken and added to a > >>> general leger with a UPC for the product code (for example). The > >>> difference is that in the charity domain it results in > the further > >>> sending of that money onto the charity represented by the UPC, > >>> whereas in the purchasing domain you get a song to download. The > >>> actual collection service therefore remains unchanged but > there is a > >>> broader service (whose interface you don't directly see > but assume) > >>> which controls the whole process. > >>> > >>> > >>> And I can safely say that these things can be a bugger to model. > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ---- > >>> *From:* Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] > >>> *Sent:* 05 September 2005 01:29 > >>> *To:* SOA-RM > >>> *Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] Amazon.com and Hurricane Catrina > - Service > >>> Context? Service "Veneer"? > >>> > >>> > >>> And the answer, as always, is it depends. In my example > of buying by > >>> UPC symbol, it is the same but possibly because the use > of the UPC > >>> symbol has been expanded. In the case of having a new > service that, > >>> let's say, automatically substitutes the charity item number for > >>> your choice of a song item number and maybe gives specialized > >>> feedback to the consumer saying thank you for responding to the > >>> hurricane emergency, I'd say it is a different service. It is > >>> derived from the original but I'd say it is different. > >>> > >>> > >>> Ken > >>> > >>> > >>> P.S. and with this busy hurricane season, we are up to Katrina. > >>> > >>> > >>> P.P.S. Another interesting aspect is if you had a computer that > >>> hadn't already accepted the iTunes terms and conditions, you were > >>> first presented with their click-through agreement before you > >>> contribute. So we also have an interesting reuse of > policy and the > >>> need to form a contract. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 4, 2005, at 7:14 PM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> <Quote> > >>> > >>> Is there also a concept of a service having the same > interface but > >>> by operating in a different domain (e.g. charity) it acts > different > >>> for the same interface? > >>> > >>> </Quote> > >>> > >>> > >>> Which raises another question we've been through before in the TC > >>> (several months ago): Is it the same service in both > cases? That is, > >>> are the "normal" Amazon.com order placement service (with credit > >>> card info on file, and selectable each time) and this new > "hurricane > >>> donation" service really the same service? > >>> > >>> > >>> Joe > >>> > >>> > >>> P.S. Not trying to resurrect a permathread - just tying a recent > >>> observation in with a past exchange, to see it in a new light. > >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ---- > >>> *From:* Jones, Steve G [mailto:steve.g.jones@capgemini.com] > >>> *Sent:* Sun 9/4/2005 5:25 PM > >>> *To:* Ken Laskey; Chiusano Joseph > >>> *Cc:* SOA-RM > >>> *Subject:* RE: [soa-rm] Amazon.com and Hurricane Catrina > - Service > >>> Context? Service "Veneer"? > >>> > >>> Is there also a concept of a service having the same > interface but > >>> by operating in a different domain (e.g. charity) it acts > different > >>> for the same interface? In effect its business contract > is changed > >>> by a business driver outside of its scope, while its > functionality > >>> (collecting money) remains the same its imperative is > changed by the > >>> wider business context in which it now sits. > >>> > >>> > >>> Steve > >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ---- > >>> *From:* Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] > >>> *Sent:* 04 September 2005 21:22 > >>> *To:* Chiusano Joseph > >>> *Cc:* SOA-RM > >>> *Subject:* Re: [soa-rm] Amazon.com and Hurricane Catrina > - Service > >>> Context? Service "Veneer"? > >>> > >>> > >>> Apple also did this with their iTunes Music Store: click the link > >>> and you order a donation instead of a song. > >>> > >>> > >>> This is why I keep insisting on differentiating between > the service > >>> and the capability. The underlying capability is to collect money > >>> for a purpose. The service provides the interface for doing that. > >>> Typically, you invoke the capability through a service > that enables > >>> you to buy a book (or a song) but a new service invokes that > >>> capability (with a new user facing interface for Apple; I haven't > >>> checked Amazon) to "buy" a donation. The power is the > capability is > >>> reusable by making it accessible through a different service. > >>> > >>> > >>> Now note if I buy something through a service that allowed me to > >>> specify the UPC code, I could buy a donation through > their existing > >>> service with that UPC, i.e. reusing the service for a purpose > >>> similar to but different from its original purpose. In > fact, several > >>> supermarkets around here do support that because they have little > >>> tear-off tablets at the checkout for certain hunger organizations > >>> and you can hand the clerk a page for $1, $5, or $10. > >>> > >>> > >>> Many interesting variations and our RM just has to capture the > >>> concepts that can describe any of them. I think I'll mow the lawn > >>> and think about this some more. > >>> > >>> > >>> Ken > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 4, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Chiusano Joseph wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> One thing that I discovered regarding the horrible catastrophe in > >>> the Southern US is that Amazon.com enabled people to use > its online > >>> ordering service to make a donation. One could use the > credit card > >>> information that Amazon.com already had online to make a > donation in > >>> what it called "1-Click Donation" (or something similar). > >>> > >>> So instead of placing an order for a book, CD, etc., your "order" > >>> was your donation, and you could view your "order" > online, which (as > >>> I recall) would show the amount that you donated. > >>> > >>> > >>> Something that came to my mind is: What would this > placing of a "new > >>> face" on a existing service be called? Is it a different > context for > >>> the ordering service? (i.e. in the context of Hurrican > Katrina) Is > >>> it a "veneer" that was placed on top of the existing > service? None > >>> of the above? > >>> > >>> > >>> Joe > >>> > >>> > >>> Joseph Chiusano > >>> > >>> Booz Allen Hamilton > >>> > >>> O: 703-902-6923 > >>> > >>> C: 202-251-0731 > >>> > >>> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > >>> <http://www.boozallen.com/> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> Ken Laskey > >>> > >>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 > >>> > >>> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 > >>> > >>> McLean VA 22102-7508 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This message contains information that may be privileged or > >>> confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is > >>> intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If > you are not > >>> the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, > >>> retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any > >>> part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify > >>> the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> Ken Laskey > >>> > >>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 > >>> > >>> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 > >>> > >>> McLean VA 22102-7508 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This message contains information that may be privileged or > >>> confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is > >>> intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If > you are not > >>> the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, > >>> retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any > >>> part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify > >>> the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. > >>> > >> > >> --- > >> Ken Laskey > >> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 > >> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 > >> > >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]