>>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?
[Peter:] I think Chris has addressed this. We maybe need some clearer wording, I don’t disagree,
>>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
600 explored in more detail in Section 3.2.2 below. <<
This statement about the service totally compromises prior global definition of service: [Peter:] Can you explain? I don’t see this at all
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
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”
[Peter:] I have no problem with your wording changes, although I may express it slightly differently
Also, further definition of Actor:
724 An actor is a participant or delegate capable of action
725 within a SOA-based system. <<
allows only technical Actors if SOA-based system is IT thing only.
[Peter:] Not at all – how do you make that conclusion? It states “participant or delegate” – participant is always a person
I strongly disagree with this approach: Actor may be not necessary a technical agent. [Peter:] Agree I’ve thought we have passed this issue long time ago.
Similar problem exists with:
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 ( [Peter:] it isn’t!) , a Participant cannot be a natural/human person “in the SOA-based system”
[Peter:] A SOA-based system has human actors (operators, users, etc), we say that – maybe not clearly enough…
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
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
If we use ‘interface’ in the singular form, this sends a message that the service may have only on interface, which is incorrect.
[Peter:] I think that you are right on this, thanks – that was included in the ‘raw definition’ that I used at the end of today’s call
What has happened with the definition of the service constructed by Ken, Boris and me?!
[Peter:] The text in 1067-1069 took Boris’ definition, suitably cleaned up. With the single comment above (replace implementation with realisation – which I agree with), we have captured what you have argued for. We need to check the rest of the doc for any other uses or definitions that contradict this.
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”
1082 book‖) è (―I want to buy that
I disagree with the definition of 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. <<
[Peter:] Syntactically this is a dreadfully crafted phrase – Capability is a something that someone is able to execute in order to provide a something that responds to a something – UGLY, I agree…but it doesn’t say that a capability is an action! ;-)
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
[Peter:] I don’t necessarily disagree with you but I’ve been editing based on input. It would have been helpful to have had this a few weeks ago. L
Again, singular interface for SOA service is unacceptable wording:
[Peter:] The standard for standards definitions and modelling is always to use the singular unless it is manifestly incorrect. We accept that any implementation can and may have several interfaces and interactions, but I think it is correct to say that a (single) interaction is with a (singular) interface, no?
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:
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. :-)
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
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.
[Peter:] This message is clear and needs to be clearer in the text.
Thank you for your time,