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] new topic for discussion: shared services


Ken,

 

With respect to 2 below, trust requires that several attributes of a service exist. As you may be aware, in ontology methodology, facts entail ( imply existence of) other facts. We may want to make explicit all entailments of our SOA ontology.

 

 

From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 10:19 PM
To: Mike Poulin
Cc: Sweet Jr., William H; <rexb@starbourne.com>; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] new topic for discussion: shared services

 

Michael,

 

You introduce numerous things that I hope we poke at as we go forward.  Let me just respond to where you asked for specific clarifications.

 

1. Would it make sense for a service to have a policy that no one may use the service unless they have gotten explicit permission?  To me, this introduces tight coupling, not in the software but in the participant interactions.  I would prefer a statement on the part of the provider about what happens if the service is over-subscribed.  This does not preclude consumers communicating with providers to give them insights into future loads, but I would think that except in extreme cases (e.g., Netflix running on AWS), a combination of monitoring, planning based on monitoring (including degradation strategy), and an effective statement of policies should be more effective than believing you can satisfy consumers through “Mother, may I?”  In fact, all of the latter is needed regardless of consumers needing explicit access permission.

 

2. re "if consumer trust who is provider…”, I was thinking that the provider can certainly make the service available but in order for the service to be used, the consumer must trust it.  Establishing sufficient trust my require more than an active endpoint and a minimal service description.

 

Too late to think hard on anything else.

 

Ken

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S F510          phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                           fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508

 

On Mar 5, 2015, at 10:08 AM, Mike Poulin <mpoulin@usa.com> wrote:

 

An onboarding is a typical procedure for the users of an asset, a service in this case. If onboarding is associated with certain constraints on the usage of the asset in the future, in SO Ecosystem we have 2 mechanisms for this: a) Service Contract; b) Service moinitoring.

 

Service Contract (explicit contract) should state that given consumer may use particular service not more than N times for period of time (and even mot less than M times for some cases). The Service Moinitoring on the provider side controls these N and M values for particular consumer. I can add - this can be applied differently (different N and M) for different service interfaces and communication channels.

 

As for the demonstrated slide:

1) for consumer onboarding - a statement "a service provider may see no need to deny access" sounds odd because that was an engagement based on publis Service Description, i.e. implicit Service Contract. If the consumer adhear to the declared polcies, the provider may not deny the request; otherwise it will be a violation of the contract.

2) for service onboarding - I am confused with the condition: "if consumer trust who is provider...": a service onboarding should not depend on opinion of particular consumer; service is onboarded as ameans of sutisfying needs of a category of consumers. A service may be up and available for invocation with no consumers at all. I agree that onboarding a service and making it avaialable/accessible to the consumers are different procedures. I used to use a quarantine pattern for this: while a service is in quarantine, only specially selected consumers may access it and report to the provider about their experience.

 

Regagrd,

- Michael

 

 

Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 at 2:37 PM
From: "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org>
To: "William H Sweet Jr." <wsweet@mitre.org>
Cc: "<rexb@starbourne.com>" <rexb@starbourne.com>, "soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org" <soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] new topic for discussion: shared services

Let’s start with identifying the aspects of shared services that need to be addressed.  While governance is certainly important, I believe there are other areas of impact.  

 

For example, I was recently in a discussion on the conditions under which a provider wants to know about a consumer, e.g. how much use, before agreeing to allowing the consumer access to the service.  The term used was “onboarding”.

 

Consider the following screen shot of a discussion slide:

 

<PastedGraphic-1.png>

So while governance will establish things to consider and processes for considering them (and management will need to make sure the wishes of governance are carried out), are there more technical things, like monitoring or testing aspects to consider?  (So the testing section of the SOA-RAF might also come into play.)  What about (enterprise) shared services that could be considered infrastructure, and to what extent does your labeling something as infrastructure depend on your context?

 

Just a few more grains for thought.

 

Ken

 

On Mar 5, 2015, at 9:08 AM, Sweet Jr., William H <wsweet@mitre.org> wrote:

 

The governance section of RM / RA are very strong. I believe we can update those sections is a reasonable amount of time to clarify shared services.

 

From: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of rexbroo
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 11:41 PM
To: soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] new topic for discussion: shared services

 

Hi Ken,

I think it is imperative that we discuss this thoroughly because otherwise it is going bite us in the behind.

Cheers,
Rex

On 3/4/2015 7:47 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:

All, 

 

The terms “shared services” or “enterprise shared services” often turn up in my world but the concepts are typically ill-defined, the criteria  are nonexistent, and the ramifications have not been explored.  Would this group be interested in adding this as another topic of discussion (and possibly a future document) along side our current SOA ontology work?

 

Note: a reasonable question is what do I mean by these terms, but I’d like to establish interest rather than just generating spam.

 

Thanks,

 

Ken

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S F510          phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                           fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508

 


 

-- 
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
GeoAddress:
1361 Addison St. Apt. A
Berkeley, CA 94702
Phone: 510-898-0670 

 



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