OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [soa-rm] RE: OASIS SOA-EERP Whitepaper and comments the thesoa-eerp TC


Bill,

 

Rex Brooks is taking the lead for reviewing SOA-EERP from a SOA-RM/RA perspective.  Our intent is to submit comments.

 

Ken

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Kenneth Laskey

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

7515 Colshire Drive                                    fax:        703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508

 

From: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@coxsoftwarearchitects.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 9:37 PM
To: Bashioum, Christopher D
Cc: Peter F Brown (Pensive); soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org; Laskey, Ken
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] RE: OASIS SOA-EERP Whitepaper and comments the the soa-eerp TC

 

All --

This is an interesting and potentially useful discussion - and will be helpful to the SOA-EERP TC if the comments go to their comment list. As you know, the TC's need to respond to comments made via the official OASIS mechanism during the public review period or at any time.

To sign up to send, go to the SOA-EERP public page at , click the "Send a Comment" link and subscribe to the comment list at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=soa-eerp .

On the discussion so far --

The intent of SOA-EERP is to optimize service deployment in a SOA environment by defining characteristics (called Business Quality of Service) as a hook. The BSLA and Rating artifacts are used to get information about prospective service providers for a given service, and to define an SLA using business terms and conditions.

So the terminology is stated to be consistent with the SOA-RM, and failure to clearly be consistent would be valuable as the TC resolves comments.

A forthcoming spec (in early draft form) addresses the use of web services to implement the interchanges shown in the White Paper.

Thanks!

bill cox
Co-Chair SOA-EERP TC
--

William Cox
Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
+1 862 485 3696 mobile
+1 908 277 3460 fax



Bashioum, Christopher D wrote:

I sort of agree, except that the RM doesn’t state what you just did.  The service is “the mechanism by which needs and capabilities are brought together”.  It explicitly distinguishes the mechanism for access from the capability itself – it does not state that using the capability makes it a service.  It’s a fine distinctinction, but an important one.

 

So ... back to my original concern.  I think the reason there has not been more adoption of the RM is that folks don’t know how to tie it to the capability, and many folks have been using the term “service” to apply to the underlying capability vs. the ability to bring that capability to bear for “anyone’s” need.  I.e., the business service as distinct from the SOA service.  

 

From: Peter F Brown (Pensive) [mailto:Peter@pensive.eu]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 4:45 PM
To: Bashioum, Christopher D; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Laskey, Ken
Subject: RE: OASIS SOA-EERP Whitepaper

 

I don’t think that is correct.

 

A capability addresses a need – it is a *potential* to perform a service - the need is satisfied by using the capability: the service.

 

Capabilities don’t “perform” anything, they just “are”. The performance of a service – delivering a real world effect – depends on there being a capability but is not the same thing.

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

From: Bashioum, Christopher D [mailto:cbashioum@mitre.org]
Sent: Thu, 01 April 2010 11:09
To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Laskey, Ken
Subject: [soa-rm] OASIS SOA-EERP Whitepaper

 

Has anyone else from the SOA RM TC reviewed the OASIS SOA-EERP whitepaper

 

http://docs.oasis-open.org/soa-eerp/whitepaper/EERP-Model-UseCase-WhitePaper-cd03.pdf

 

They reference the RM, however, there is one paragraph that caught my attention:

 

Services are performed by people, machines, and hardware/software applications, and represented by SOA services. The qualities of a business service are expressed by means of the Business Quality of Service (bQoS) specification. The nature of bQoS varies across industries and services.

 

The RM would change this to

Capabilities are performed by people, machines, and hardware/software applications, and represented by SOA services. The qualities of a business service are expressed by means of the Business Quality of Service (bQoS) specification. The nature of bQoS varies across industries and services.

 

I think we may need to do something about addressing the idea of a capability that is intended for “others”, i.e., a business service – which is enabled in Software by a SOA service in front of a capability.  We’ve talked about it, but I think a whitepaper on this will be useful. 

 

Note that such a whitepaper would also go a long way towards helping to navigate the SOA Standards landscape, as I think the main issue between the various SDOs on SOA is about using the term “service” to mean “functionality intended for others” vs. as an IT artifact that enables access to such funtionality (which is the RM view).

 

Thoughts?



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]