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: Service definition at nauseum


Well said Jeff,

I ran into this in the DM2 meeting today when I gave a cut down version 
of this, saying that a SOA Service offered a capability according to a 
contract and then added that the details were contained in the service 
description but not necessarily revealed to an end user but might be to 
another service provider for use in a composition or aggregation. What 
was heard was "SOA Service offered a capability according to a 
contract." Fortunately Dave and I took on the Action Item to clarify 
that and a few other things, so we can convey our consensus.

However the one sentence rule applies.

Cheers,
Rex

Estefan, Jeff A (3100) wrote:
>
> Frank,
>
> Your right, however, the alternative would be to chunk up the formal 
> definition into separate sentences, which I would ordinarily be OK 
> with but clearly from our experience, the stakeholder community out 
> there ends up adopting a one sentence definition. For example, if we 
> simply defined a SOA service as a capability offered and stopped 
> there, nobody would get the essence of what services means in the 
> context of SOA.
>
> There are some key elements to our *service* (in the context of SOA) 
> definition that it has to embody. One, is to articulate that a SOA 
> service IS a capability offered by a provider for a consumer. Second, 
> that access is provided using a prescribed *[service] interface* that 
> abstracts (or hides) the implementation details of the capability. And 
> finally, that it (the service) is exercised consistent with *contract* 
> and *policy *constraints* *as specified by its *[service] description*.
>
> <SIDEBAR> The last sentence is a slight variation from my earlier 
> proposed definition and could be worded using slightly better English. 
> What I noticed missing from the original definition of service in the 
> RM was the notion of *contract* and it originally stated “…constraints 
> and policies…” and we know, of course, that contracts are key to ANY 
> service paradigm, and that both contracts and policies are just 
> specific types of constraints. If somebody could clean up the wording 
> a bit, that would be great. Maybe it’s OK as written above.</SIDEBAR>
>
> I’m OK if we chunk these key characteristics of the definition for SOA 
> service into separate sentences but they MUST be articulated in such a 
> way that the collective whole constitutes the formal definition of 
> this very important core concept of the SOA paradigm.
>
> Cheers!
>
> - Jeff
>

-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670



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