>>1.4.2 System ViewRealization
of a SOA Ecosystem viewpoint
289 This viewpoint focuses
on the infrastructure elements that are needed to support the
290 construction of
SOA-based systems. From this viewpoint, we are concerned with the
291 application of
well-understood technologies available to system architects to realize the
292 SOA vision of managing
systems and services that cross ownership boundaries.
293 The stakeholders are
essentially anyone involved in designing, constructing and
294 deploying a SOA-based system.<<
This view gives only one-side perspective from technology
standpoint. If SOA is in Business and Technology, where is the business part of
Realization of a SOA Ecosystem?
>>Although
a SOA-based system is essentailly an
597 IT
concern, it is nonetheless a system engineered deliberately to be able to
function in a
598 SOA
ecosystem. In this context, a service is the mechanism that brings a SOA-based system
capability together with stakeholder needs in the wider
599 ecosystem.
This is
600 explored in
more detail in Section 3.2.2 below. <<
This statement about the
service totally compromises prior global definition of service:
services as ―the
mechanism by which
577 needs
and capabilities are brought together‖…. The role of a service in
584 the SOA
context is to enable effective business solutions in a distributed environment.
585 SOA is
thus a paradigm that guides the identification, design, and implementation of
586 such services.
This locks the door for Business SOA and for SOA in Business
(and cuts off all my daily work from this standard). Thus, I propose different
text for this fragment:
“Although a SOA-based
system originated from Technology, it is nonetheless a system structured and engineered
in both business and technical parts to be able to function in a
598 SOA
ecosystem. In this context, a service is the mechanism that brings a SOA-based system
capabilities together with stakeholder and consumer needs in the wider
599 ecosystem”
Also, further definition
of Actor:
>> 723 Actor
724 An actor is a person
participant or automated agentdelegate capable of action
725 within a
SOA-based system. <<
allows only technical Actors if SOA-based system is IT thing
only. I strongly disagree with this approach: Actor may be not necessary a technical
agent. I’ve thought we have passed this issue long time ago.
Similar problem exists with:
>>Participant
A participant is a
person10 730 who is both a stakeholder in the SOA ecosystem and
731 an actor in
the SOA-based system. <<
-
if SOA-based system is IT thing only, a
Participant cannot be a natural/human person “in the
SOA-based system”
In another place, service definition is modified afain in
different way than we discussed before. The offered text is:
>> Service
is therefore the
1068 implementation
of such business functionality and accessible through a defined
1069 interface.
<<
The text that, IMO, is more accurate is (implementation differs from realisation in that the latter does not
catty technical connotation that obviously and leaves the room for manual
implementation):
“Service is therefore the
1068 realisation of such
business functionality and accessible through a defined
1069 interfaces.”
If we use ‘interface’ in the singular form, this sends a
message that the service may have only on interface, which is incorrect.
What has happened with the definition of the service
constructed by Ken, Boris and me?!
Next group o comments for the fragment:
>> The
idea of a service in a SOA ecosystem combines business functionality with
1075 implementation,
including the artifacts needed and made available as IT resources.
1076 From
the perspective of software developers, a SOA service enables the use of
1077 capabilities
in an IT context. For the consumer, the service (combining business
1078 functionality
and implementation) produces intended real world effects. They are not
1079 concerned with
the underlying artifacts which make that delivery possible.<<
Propose: “The
idea of a service in a SOA ecosystem combines business functionality with
1075 realisation…, including the artifacts
needed and made available as IT
resources.” – see my comments above regarding ‘realisation’. Again, SOA anchored
to IT – this is wrong. We have to change out mindset regarding this issue.
Also, the statement is
not accurate: >> For the consumer, the service (combining business
1078 functionality
and implementation) produces intended real world effects << because even in IT the RWE may be not
intended and consumer of the service/RWE may be not the one who requested the
service (if we stick with that the RWE is only shared/public service result).
That is, the text may be like this: “For the consumers, the service (combining business
1078 functionality
and realisation) produces intended real world effects”
(―I want to but
that
1082 book‖)
è (―I want to buy that
1082 book‖)
I disagree with the definition of Capability:
>> Capability
1107 A capability is an
action or set of actions real-world effect that a service provider
1108 is able to provide
execute in order to provide a real world effect that responds to
1109 a service consumer‘s need. <<
Capability
is not an action but ability to produce particular result. Result is more than
a RWE because one part of it may be private and returned to the requester only.
Also, the result/RWE is provided by Service not by Service Provider. Again, if
RWE is shared and public only, it may be responding to the service consumer
needs. Example: a program asks a service to store a credit card information in
the database. Result of this is returned confirmation while RWE is the information
in the database which may be stolen by an intruder (another consumer of the service’s
RWE), which does not fit with the program needs
Again, singular interface for SOA service is unacceptable
wording:
1113 3.2.2 Services
Reflecting Business
1114 The SOA
paradigm often emphasizes the prescribed interfaces through which service
1115 interactions are is
accomplished. While this enables predictable integrations in the sense of
1116 traditional
software development, the prescribed interfaces alone does not guarantee that
1117 services will
be composable into business solutions.
Change in the definition – actions vs. interactions:
>>< Business
solution
1119 A business
solution is a set of defined inter
actions that combine implemented
1120 or notional
business functionality in order to address a set of business needs. <
Inherited problem: initially we considered that everything a service results in is RWE. Now, we say that only shared/public part of the service results is RWE. In this case, the definition of Service Activity is incorrect. Service Activity must satisfy consumer first and return requested results, if the will be a RWE, it is OK too but Service Actions are about producing results to be returned first of all while RWE is a possible companion.If you disagree with this interpretation, we have to return previous meaning of RWE as everything produces by service including private and non-shared results. :-)
Service Activity
1210 Service activity is the coordinated set of actions involving the efforts of two or
1211 more actors to achieve a real world effect. It is the activity in which participants
1212 deliver a service or a part thereof.
Final comment about Policies and Contracts: in the section 3.3.6 Policies and Contracts, the Contracts are practically absent. I propose to add following statements:
· Agreements Contract are constraints 1504 agreed
to
o Contracts often need to be
enforced by mechanisms of the social structure
· Contracts have owners
o The
right to establish contracts is an aspect of both service provider and service
consumers.
· Contracts may not be different
from one another
o Contracts are private matters if otherwise is not agreed by both
service provider and service consumer. Stored contract have to be protected to
preserve confidentiality and integrity
In 2011, it does not make sense producing another technical
SOA standard that does not look further than IT. IT is already isolated and SOA
is the only hope to restore the trust between IT and Business.
Thank you for your time,