[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] summary of service definition suggestions
Frank,
service is not a resource. Service is a verb, while a resource is a noun. A given resource can hava multiple methods aka services.
From: Francis McCabe [fmccabe@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:22 PM To: Ken Laskey Cc: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [soa-rm] summary of service definition suggestions I *was* going to ask why we are revisiting this. But then I reread the RM; and now I think I understand. I does not meet our 'loose coupling' criterion.
My 2 cents (repeated from earlier discussions)
1. There is some desire to distinguish the 'potential' aspect of service from the 'actual' performance of service. Both senses are used and it is therefore easy to talk at cross-purposes.
2. There is also the 'thick' view of service compared to the 'thin' view. If you are a user of a service then you will see the service 'head-on' as it where, and it becomes essentially a window onto the capability you are trying to access. From the head-on
view, you do not really see the service itself, you only 'see' the capability -- through a glass darkly as it were.
From the 'sideways' view, you see the service as an entity in its own right that needs policies, management, deployment, testing etc. etc. This is the thick view of service: thick because there is tangible 'stuff' between the users of service and the providers,
stuff that you need to know about.
Again, I think that both aspects are legitimate but confusion can reign if you do not distinguish these.
Suggestions:
(a) A service is an [abstract] resource that permits actors to provide and access capabilities, together with descriptions that characterize the capabilities and the means to access them.
(b) A service is a coherent set of potential objectives that an actor (or actors) are predisposed to adopt, together with descriptions that characterize the requirements and the potential objectives.
The second definition is, of course, informed by Section 3 :) I can also see people scratching their heads about it.
Frank
On Jul 17, 2010, at 8:02 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]