Joe,
I think what was decided was that a
detailed discussion of orchestration was beyond the scope of the RM but
we didn't necessarily ban the term. I expect the fact that
services can call other services will have some mention but not a
discussion of how it would be done.
Ken
At 12:57 PM
9/6/2005, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
John,
I believe this was determined
several months ago (I say that in a helpful way, not in a criticizing
way). I don't believe we are limited at all in our capability to define
service. It's just that we need to define certain "basic" aspects first,
and have other TCs (or perhaps this one in a later phase) extend our RM
to include capabilities such as orchestration. We've sometimes referred
to this as a POA (Process-Oriented
Architecture).
Hang in there, we'll get
there.....
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen
Hamilton
O: 703-902-6923
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
From: John Harby [
mailto:jharby@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September
06, 2005 12:44 PM
To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Amazon.com and Hurricane
Catrina - Service Context? Service "Veneer"?
I'm surprised that orchestration is out of
scope. I could understand how specifics such as BPEL
would be out of scope but many people will call
things services that are lorchestrations of other
services. If
orchestration is out of scope then are we limited in our capability to
define "service"?
On 9/6/05, Chiusano Joseph <
chiusano_joseph@bah.com> wrote:
Emphasizing that orchestration is out of scope
for our RM (it's for another RM that can be built on top of ours), and
speaking only of Web Services: I would say that all Web Services are
orchestrable, but not all Web Services are "orchestration-ready". That
is, in order to be "orchestration-ready" a Web Service may need to have
the ability to participate in a certain protocol (e.g. the OASIS WS-CAF
coordination protocol, which can be part of orchestration) by
implementing that protocol.
For example, a Web Service may need to have the
capability to register itself with a coordinator
service.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
O: 703-902-6923
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
From: John Harby [
mailto:jharby@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September
06, 2005 12:03 PM
To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Amazon.com and Hurricane
Catrina - Service Context? Service "Veneer"?
One question
I had was can all services be orchestrated or are there "orchestratable
services" and "non-orchestratable services". If there is a distinction,
would this orchestration capability be mitigated via
policy?
John
Harby
On 9/6/05, Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
wrote:
The actual
collection (orchestration?) of services (or more basically, capabilities
that the services access?) will reflect the particular business process,
but at a reference model level we can't build a different model for each
business process. The challenge is to identify the concepts from
which you can support any business process. (Question: have the
previous drafts of SOA-RM missed any of these concepts?) A
previous difficulty when looking at typical use cases is that not every
SOA challenge will have a purchase order and a credit card number.
While purchasing is an important use case, a SOA tailored to support the
variations of purchasing may fail badly in addressing, say, the need to
find and access real time disaster data.
Ken
At 11:23 AM
9/6/2005, marchadr@wellsfargo.com wrote:
I tend to agree with
Steve's point about having the model reflect the business processes and
then deriving the service definition from the type of processes the
service will aggregate or use. In theory, the payment of a product,
service or donation is not that different since at the end of the day it
becomes a transaction of a total amount from one account to the other
(Amazon's in this case) and the entities (product, service, or donation)
are a means to an end.
The separation of the
order versus the purchasing would probably be the best approach for the
interface design, since the order could vary and have polymorphistic
behavior depending on the type of entities that are a part of the order.
(In some cases, the order would have a possibility of having a donation
and a product in the same order from the UI point of view.) The
order would be used to hold products and start the back office
processing, while the purchase would make the transaction of money based
on a total amount of the order.
This brings up an
issue in some ways of whether or not the order triggers the purchase
which would result in a service invoking another
service.
The other issue I have
been finding is a return is similar to a purchase since it is the
reverse of the transaction (one account to another with an amount),
since usually it is to late to reverse it before it actual makes a
charge. Also in the case of purchasing large amounts of products and
paying for them and in some back office process one product is
determined to be discontinued then the reversal of a transaction will
really be based on the amount of that discontinued transaction and not
the total amount which would almost be like purchasing the product back
from the customer.
Something to think
about. The context seems to be a good approach for the ordering and
purchasing scenario.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones, Steve G [ mailto:steve.g.jones@capgemini.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05,
2005 7:30 AM
To: Ken Laskey; SOA-RM
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Amazon.com and Hurricane
Catrina - Service Context? Service "Veneer"?
I've found that the
only way to model this is to ensure that you have a hierarchy of service
that models the full business rather than concentrating on the technical
delivery elements. So you must model (but not have to
directly implement) the two types of services, which then act as
containers for the technical services. The higher order service
then has different business processes that give different results, but
these are hidden from the service consumers.
What has been the
biggest problem for me has been how to represent the change in contract
(but not interface) of a service due to its different domain. This
isn't a huge technical challenge at the moment (as we can't define
contracts at all!) but could become a much bigger challenge is
future. Some concept of contract inheritance might work
here…
I'm wary of describing
groups as things (like a payment service) as a capability rather than a
service as it gets tricky on granularity, unless you mean that a
capability is a single invocation on a service?
If we deal in RM
around Service boundaries and the concept of hierarchy then we don't
have a new service just a different context. Where it gets tricky
for me is when you have a service that IS clearly re-used but is
actually completely separate. You get this in some compliance
sensitive areas where they use identical solutions but completely
separate instances. This is different to ones where they do that
just because they can, there is a broader context that means they MUST
be kept separate… a real bugger to model.
In part I'm interested
in how we are putting hierarchy into the RM?
Steve
From: Ken Laskey [ mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: 05 September 2005
15:12
To: SOA-RM
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Amazon.com and Hurricane
Catrina - Service Context? Service "Veneer"?
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
---
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
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
/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ Ken
Laskey
\
| MITRE Corporation, M/S
H305 phone: 703-983-7934
|
| 7515 Colshire
Drive
fax: 703-983-1379 |
\ McLean VA
22102-7508
/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------