[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Groups - Editor's draft of PR2 (soa-rm pr2 changes.pdf) uploaded
On May 23, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
Frank,
I'm in Scotland (arrived last week) and can't even tell if I'm jet
lagged. The email was composed right after I got here so let me
see if I can clarify.
At 04:55 PM 5/23/2006, Frank McCabe wrote:
Ken:
I am a little confused about some of your comments:
On May 19, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
- Issue 539: Proposed Disposition was modified when edits made and
this led to some side effects
[snip]
(3) some wording intended to improve consistency of information
return as an aspect of real world effect was lost
do not know what you are referring to here
see Issues-9, cell M33 for PD. Below are specifics.
(Note, don't believe any change intended in italics but I think
some got lost in all the cut and paste.)
---
[last 3 sentences of PD for PR1 lines 138-144 (edit by Peter
because original may be easy to misread)]
We are careful to distinguish between public actions and private
actions; private actions are inherently unknowable by other
parties. On the other hand, public actions result in changes to the
state, that state being shared between at least those involved in
the current execution context and possibly shared by others. Real
world effects are, then, couched in terms of changes to this shared
state.
This is already exactly always what was in the text I posted...
[PR2 164-167]
We are careful to distinguish between public actions and private
actions; private actions are inherently unknowable by other
parties. On the other hand, public actions result in changes to the
state that is shared at least between those involved in the current
execution context and possibly shared by others. Real world effects
are, then, couched in terms of changes to this shared state.
Ditto
---
[PD for PR1 lines 464-496]
Real World Effect
There is always a particular purpose associated with interacting
with a service. Conversely, a service provider (and consumer) often
has a priori conditions that apply to its interactions. The
service consumer is trying to achieve some result by using the
service, as is the service provider. At first sight, such a goal
can often be expressed as “trying to get the service to do
something”. This is sometimes known as the "real world effect" of
using a service. For example, an airline reservation service can be
used to learn about available flights and seating and eventually to
book travel the desired real world effects being needed
information and eventually a seat on the right flight.
Ditto
As was discussed in Section 3.1, a real world effect can be the
response to a request for information or the change in the state of
some defined entities shared by the service participants. In this
context, the shared state does not necessarily refer to specific
state variables being saved in physical storage but rather
represent shared information about the affected entities. So in
the example of the airline reservation, the shared state - that
there is a seat reserved on a particular flight - represents a
common understanding between a future passenger and the airline.
The details of actual state changes whether on the part of the
passenger (e.g. fund balances required to pay for the ticket) or of
the airline (e.g. that a seat is sold for that flight) - are not
shared by the other.
[figure here]
Figure 1 Real World Effect and shared state
In addition, the internal actions that service providers and
consumers perform as a result of participation in service
interactions are, by definition, private and fundamentally
unknowable. By unknowable we mean both that external parties cannot
see others’ private actions and, furthermore, SHOULD NOT have
explicit knowledge of them. Instead we focus on the set of facts
shared by the parties. Actions by service providers and consumers
lead to modifications of this shared state; and a real world effect
of a service interaction is the accumulation of the changes visible
through the shared state.
For example, when an airline has confirmed a seat for a passenger
on a flight this represents a fact that both the airline and the
passenger share it is part of their shared state. Thus the real
world effect of booking the flight is the modification of this
shared state the creation of the fact of the booking. Flowing
from the shared facts, the passenger, the airline, and interested
third parties may make inferences for example, when the passenger
arrives at the airport the airline confirms the booking and permits
the passenger onto the airplane (subject of course to the passenger
meeting the other requirements for traveling).
For the airline to know that the seat is confirmed it will likely
require some private action to record the reservation. However, a
passenger should not have to know the details of the airline
internal procedures. Likewise, the airline does not know if the
reservation was made by the passenger or someone acting on the
passenger’s behalf. The passenger’s and the airline’s
understanding of the reservation is independent of how the airline
maintains its records or who initiated the action.
[PR2 lines 517-561]
3.2.3 Real World Effect
There is always a particular purpose associated with interacting
with a service. Conversely, a service provider (and consumer) often
has a priori conditions that apply to its interactions. The service
consumer is trying to achieve some result by using the service, as
is the service provider. At first sight, such a goal can often be
expressed as “trying to get the service to do something”. This is
sometimes known as the real world effect of using a service. For
example, an airline reservation service can be used in order to
book travel the desired real world effect being a seat on the
right airplane.
[figure here]
Figure 1 Real World Effect and shared state
The internal actions that service providers and consumers perform
as a result of participation in service interactions are, by
definition, private and fundamentally unknowable. By unknowable we
mean both that external parties cannot see others’ private actions
and, furthermore, SHOULD NOT have explicit knowledge of them.
Instead we focus on the set of facts shared by the parties the
shared state. Actions by service providers and consumers lead to
modifications of this shared state; and the real world effect of a
service interaction is the accumulation of the changes in the
shared state.
There is a strong relationship between the shared state and the
interactions that lead up to that state. The elements of the shared
state SHOULD be inferable from that prior interaction together with
other context as necessary. In particular, it is not required that
the state be recorded; although without such recording it may
become difficult to audit the interaction at a subsequent time.
For example, when an airline has confirmed a seat for a passenger
on a flight this represents a fact that both the airline and the
passenger share it is part of their shared state. Thus the real
world effect of booking the flight is the modification of this
shared state the creation of the fact of the booking. Flowing
from the shared facts, the passenger, the airline, and interested
third parties may make inferences for example, when the passenger
arrives at the airport the airline confirms the booking and permits
the passenger onto the airplane (subject of course to the passenger
meeting the other requirements for traveling). For the airline to
know that the seat is confirmed it will likely require some private
action to record the reservation. However, a passenger should not
have to know the details of the airline internal procedures. The
passenger’s understanding of the reservation is independent of how
the airline maintains its records. Likewise, the airline does not
know if the reservation was made by the passenger or someone acting
on the passenger’s behalf. The passenger’s and the airline’s
understanding of the reservation is independent of how the airline
maintains its records or who initiated the action.
As was discussed in Section 3.1 , a real world effect can be the
response to a request for information or the change in the state of
some defined entities shared by the service participants. In this
context, the shared state does not necessarily refer to specific
state variables being saved in physical storage but rather
represent shared information about the affected entities. So in the
example of the airline reservation, the shared state - that there
is a seat reserved on a particular flight - represents a common
understanding between a future passenger and the airline. The
details of actual state changes whether on the part of the
passenger (e.g. fund balances required to pay for the ticket) or of
the airline (e.g. that a seat is sold for that flight) - are not
shared by the other.
I had already done all this! The paragraphing is slightly different,
maybe that is why you got confused. (I know I am)
(4) other agreed clarifications were lost
Ditto
covered above
The discussion leading to PD was email thread concluding 4/26/2006
with my accepting Peter's final changes. This version is reflected
in the spreadsheet.
covered above
- Issue 567 (or 534-4): resolution during May 3 call was not to
change (now line 311). Believe this also applies to line 595.
Totally confused here. I though that we agreed to remove the "one or
more" reference
The minutes say, "Leave line 262 as is." As noted, this also
applies to change to line 595.
Other things noticed:This is probably weird; but it was agreed! I can take out the
- Text added in the Abstract references Figure 1. Should the
Abstract directly reference rather than just summarize the body of
the document?
reference easily
I don't have notes that apply to this, so I'm not sure what said.
If others agree this is weird, I'd drop it.
- Section 1.5.1
-- line 106: is there a reason Concept is capitalized?
Its in the diagram ..
-- lines 110-112: more accurately, "The relationships betweenfixed
concepts in this document are not labeled; the relationship is
described in the immediately preceding or subsequent text."
-- lines 113-117: all of our relationships have arrows, so isleave it in, just in case?
there any need for these lines?
-- suggest combining Figures 2 and 4, deleting Figure 3 and
saying, "Concept maps are used within this document to indicate
concepts and relationships being discussed in the surrounding
text. There is no normative convention for interpreting concept
maps. As used in this document a line between two concepts
represents a relationship, where the relationship is not labeled
but rather is described in the text immediately preceding or
following the figure. The arrow on a line indicates an
asymmetrical relationship, where the concept to which the arrow
points (Concept 2 in Figure 2) can be interpreted as depending in
some way on the concept from which the line originates (Concept
1). The text accompanying each graphic describes the nature of
each relationship."
Agreed.
So this last would supersede the previous comments on the concept
map description. Right?
--Now starting to work on all the responses I've got actions on.
Ken
At 04:35 AM 5/16/2006, frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com wrote:
Please review.
Figure 1 has an outstanding edit; otherwise all dispositions
agreed to should be accounted for. -- Dr. Francis McCabe The
document named Editor's draft of PR2 (soa-rm pr2 changes.pdf) has
been submitted by Dr. Francis McCabe to the OASIS SOA Reference
Model TC document repository. Document Description: This is an
editor's draft of the second Public Review of the RM v. 1
This has markup to highlight the differences between this version
and PR1. View Document Details: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/ org/ workgroup/soa-rm/document.php?document_id=18173 Download
Document:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/soa-rm/ download.php/ 18173/soa-rm%20pr2%20changes.pdf PLEASE NOTE: If
the above links
do not work for you, your email application may be breaking the
link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and paste the
entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
- OASIS Open Administration br
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
/ Ken
Laskey
\
| MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 |
| 7515 Colshire Drive fax:
703-983-1379 |
\ McLean VA
22102-7508 /
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]