We made the decision to make that
statement at a F2F meeting in order to prevent the document from becoming pure
philosophy.
-matt
From: Jones, Steve G
[mailto:steve.g.jones@capgemini.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28,
2005 6:57 AM
To: Chiusano Joseph;
soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Metadata
Line 28, top of page 2
“This Reference
Model scopes itself to the field of software architecture”
On my list too J
I’d like to see us
also include services that are provided by non-technology means, the reason for
that is it makes models more complete and also helps when turning something
from manual into automated as you’ve already identified it as a service
(e.g. paper based timesheet “service” is replaced by desktop
application, SLA remains the same but the interface has changed).
Steve
From: Chiusano Joseph
[mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
Sent: 28 September 2005 11:51
To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Metadata
I'm not certain that we
state in our RM that "SOA is purely a software thing" - if we do, I
will probably be logging an issue that that statement be removed or refined. I
believe what we say is that we are *focusing* on the software architecture
aspects of SOA.
Having said that, I believe SOA is much more than
software - it is about *capabilities* that are partially (and greatly)
provided/supported by technical services (I use "technical" rather
than "software" because it sounds more general to me and more correct
when speaking at this level). SOA, in general, can definitely involve people -
consider a supply chain capability that contains a (sub-)capability for
processing purchase orders that is service-oriented (a "service-oriented
capability"). That sub-capability can be supported by one or more
technical services - for example, a "purchase order service" that
enables such "operations" as "submit PO", "check PO
status", "add line item to PO", etc.
So it's about technology supporting capabilities that
also involve people. Or put another way, technology supporting capabilities
that support people.
From:
Jones, Steve G [mailto:steve.g.jones@capgemini.com]
Sent: Wed 9/28/2005 4:47 AM
To: Frank McCabe; Ken Laskey
Cc: SOA-RM
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Metadata
I'm writing up my review notes at the
moment. But this for me is a key area
as to whether SOA is purely a software thing (as stated in the RM) or a
wider architectural approach. The example of the plug-socket I think is a
great example of a physical world SOA, but again there is no technology
(except some complex PAT) that can understand the concept of a plug-socket
and obtain power. The discovery is done by individuals in the same way as
people use ATMs.
So the question is whether, like Soylent Green, SOA contains people.
Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank McCabe [mailto:frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: 27 September 2005 19:21
> To: Ken Laskey
> Cc: SOA-RM
> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Metadata
>
> Getting slightly back on topic .. :)
> The point of bringing out the machine processability aspect is that
> that *is* the intention behind the descriptions of services. An
> example of a deeply unprocessable description is "this service will
> do wonders for your X life".
> Even assuming that you can parse such descriptions, there is no
> foreseable technology that can use such a description to do discovery
> for instance.
> Frank
>
> On Sep 27, 2005, at 11:09 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>
> > Today we'll take on the deep meanings of SOA and tomorrow we can
> > deal with the logic of negation.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > On Sep 27, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I take that double negative as meaning that he is convinced that
> >> it *is* redundant.
> >>
> >> Joe :p
> >>
> >> Joseph Chiusano
> >> Booz Allen Hamilton
> >>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 700 13th St. NW
> >> Washington, DC 20005
> >> O: 202-508-6514 <= new office number as of 09/19/05
> >> C: 202-251-0731
> >> Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: Matt MacKenzie [mailto:mattm@adobe.com]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 2:00 PM
> >>> To: Ken Laskey
> >>> Cc: SOA-RM
> >>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Metadata
> >>>
> >>> I'm still not convinced that it is not redundant, even with
your
> >>> great description.
> >>>
> >>> -matt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 1:56 PM
> >>> To: Matt MacKenzie
> >>> Cc: SOA-RM
> >>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Metadata
> >>>
> >>> OK, Matt, then I'll attempt to define machine processibility
as
> >>> the representation of information in a standard,
referenceable
> >>> format that conveys the necessary semantics to enable a
machine
> >>> to fully utilize the information for the purpose for which
the
> >>> information was created. General use in a context outside its
> >>> original intent may require additional capabilities which are
> >>> outside the current scope of the discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Ken
> >>>
> >>> P.S. Note, I have not taken a position on whether this is
within
> >>> RM scope or not.
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 27, 2005, at 1:46 PM, Matt MacKenzie wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "machine processibility" means nothing. I
vote we remove it on
> >>>> that basis. People have been equating machine
processability
> >>>> with XML as a way of promoting the XML revolution.
The nasty
> >>>> secret is that we were processing reams of information
before
> >>>> XML as well. We can build parsers for nearly any
language.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lets just remove it.
> >>>>
> >>>> -matt
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 1:41 PM
> >>>> To: Duane Nickull; Behera, Prasanta; SOA-RM
> >>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Metadata
> >>>>
> >>>> Duane,
> >>>>
> >>>> This is also somewhat subtle. Is the (desired or
realizable)
> >>>> machine processibility of the metadata a fundamental
concept or
> >>>> is it a nice to have option for the implementer?
The former
> >>>> belongs in the RM, the latter does not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do log it but also continue to discuss.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ken
> >>>>
> >>>> At 01:16 PM 9/27/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I would assert that since our model is abstract, the
adjective
> >>>> "machine process-able" is overstepping the bounds
and scope of
> >>>> the spec. As soon as we say this we are being too
concrete. It
> >>>> is equally feasible that a half automated system will
rely on
> >>>> some human to look at *some* aspects of a services
metadata such
> >>>> as who the owner is or something to assure them it is
secure.
> >>>>
> >>>> Recommend we log it as an issue and propose the machine
process-
> >>>> able part be removed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Duane
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Behera, Prasanta [ mailto:pbehera@visa.com]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 9:44 AM
> >>>> To: SOA-RM
> >>>> Subject: [soa-rm] Metadata
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Is metadata == "machine process-able
descriptions"?
> >>>>
> >>>> In the 09 draft (section 2.2.3), it seems that we are
making
> >>>> that assertion.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think "machine process-able
description/information" is a
> >>>> component of it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Opinion/thought?
> >>>>
> >>>> (NOTE: This is not a formal issue against _09 draft).
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> /Prasanta
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> --------------
> >>>> / 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
> >>>
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------
> > 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.
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.
|
|