proposed resolution for issue 538

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>]

Issue:

re description:

- is the idea made enough that building description with links aids in reusability and explicit reusability (vice just using the same string as used elsewhere) aids interoperability?  Or is this a point to include in the RA?

- Is the idea made enough that “description” is the important concept and service description is the one we talk about the most;  however, description of needs (the consumer end) is also (equally?) important?

Proposed resolution:

Suggest incorporating aspects of these points by adding a sentence at line 232 (paragraph ending with line 232 included for context):

First, SOA reflects the reality that ownership boundaries are a motivating consideration in the architecture and design of systems.  This recognition is evident in the core concepts of visibility, interaction and effect.  However, SOA does not itself address all the concepts associated with ownership, ownership domains and actions communicated between legal peers. To fully account for concepts such as trust, business transactions, authority, delegation and so on – additional conceptual frameworks and architectural elements are required.  Within the context of SOA, these are likely to be represented and referenced within service descriptions and service interfaces.  The presence of service descriptions and service interfaces provides a ready location for including such references and thus facilitates reuse of externally developed frameworks and interoperability among systems availing themselves of this reuse.

---

Ken Laskey

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934

7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508