[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [Update] RE: [soa-rm] [Amazon Patent Filing on Web Services Marketplace] RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure 2-1
Yesterday Saleforce.com announced a marketplace for applications called AppExchange. Seems like the marketplace euphoria of late 90's is coming back ... /Prasanta -----Original Message----- From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:48 AM To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [soa-rm] [Update] RE: [soa-rm] [Amazon Patent Filing on Web Services Marketplace] RE: [soa-rm][issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure 2-1 Just announced: "StrikeIron Launches Web Services Marketplace[1]". Perhaps an attempt to get in under the wire before the Amazon patent application is resolved? Joe [1] http://www.webservices.org/index.php/ws/content/view/full/71622 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: 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 > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]