RE: [soa-rm] Public Review Comment

["Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Don, Miko:

If Miko wants to do this, he needs to follow the OASIS process.  I am sure
he is aware of this given he is a TC chair as well.

Alternatively - we could discuss it on an informal basis in the TC, after
which Miko is welcome to still enter a comment if he wishes to.  It is
Miko's decision how he wants to proceed.

Miko?

D

*******************************
Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT  http://www.uncefact.org/
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee
Personal Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
******************************* 


-----Original Message-----
From: Don Flinn [mailto:flinn@alum.mit.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:59 AM
To: Miko Matsumura
Cc: Duane Nickull; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Public Review Comment

Miko

Do you want me to include this in the Public Comments Issues list or is
this something for discussion on the RM e-mail list?  I have been taking
comments from the Public Comments section for inclusion in the official
Issues List.  I will be happy to include this in the Issues List if that
is your intent.

Thanks 
Don

On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 06:26 -0800, Miko Matsumura wrote:
> Hi folks.
>  
> I have a comment on this section:
> A service is opaque in that its implementation is typically hidden from
the service consumer 273
> 
> except for (1) the information and behavior models exposed through the
service interface and (2) 274
> 
> the information required by service consumers to determine whether a given
service is 275
> 
> appropriate for their needs. 276
> 
> I am curious about this definition because it appears to exclude in the
definition of the service description any additional information used by
service providers for the purpose of maintaining a service. This is just one
example of a purpose and a constituency which does not appear to be
sufficiently served by this definition. In my experience, services are
"viewed" by a diverse set of provider and consumer constituencies which each
require information about the service implementation. An example would be
lifecycle management of a service from the perspective of a service
provider. Or would this be viewed as a part of the implementation? In this
case, substantial metadata description is needed within the implementation.
> 
> It is also referred to in an earlier section here:
> 
> In general, entities (people and organizations) offer capabilities and act
as service providers. 172
> 
> Those with needs who make use of services are referred to as service
consumers. The service 173
> 
> description allows prospective consumers to decide if the service is
suitable for their current 174
> 
> needs and establishes whether a consumer satisfies any requirements of the
service provider. 175
> 
> Services are wonderfully opaque. This is good stuff. Abstracting away the
implementation is one of the benefits and provides a degree of
commoditization of the implementation. Very handy. However, in practice,
dealing with services requires a great deal of service description --only
some of which is targeted at service consumers. 
> 
> One interpretation is that you could define, for example, someone who is a
member of the provider organization, but who is managing the promotion of a
service from development stage to production as a "service consumer" in that
they are "making use" of the service, and modifying . But I think this
definition is a little awkward
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Miko
> 
-- 
Don Flinn
President, Flint Security LLC
Tel: 781-856-7230
Fax: 781-631-7693
e-mail: flinn@alum.mit.edu
http://flintsecurity.com

smime.p7s