Re: [soa-rm-ra] further thoughts on visibility and publish-find-bind

Michael,

You are correct but I was thinking more about policies and technical
assumptions.

As I said, rough capture of thoughts and that is the kind of clean-up
that would need to be incorporated if I (for project work)/we (for RA
work) take this forward.

Ken

At 08:36 AM 7/21/2006, Michael Stiefel wrote:

 "If any of these have
changed with service substitution, the execution context must be
reestablished." 

Isn't the URI itself part of the execution context? So even if the URI is
substituted for, wouldn't that be a change in execution context?

I suppose another way of asking this question is: What isn't part of the
execution context?

Michael

At 12:17 AM 7/19/2006, Ken Laskey wrote:

While working on a project for
my day job, I cautioned against blind  

recitation of the publish-find-bind mantra and was asked for an 

alternative.  This followed our discussion of Danny's
visibility  

write-up and so I scratched down some thoughts and exchanged a few 

emails with Danny for a sanity check.  Below is a capture of
our  

exchange and the attached (apologies for the length) are the ideas
as  

they stand after incorporating some (but not all) of the
discussion.

(Sorry for the Word attachment but (1) wasn't sure where to put it
in  

the wiki and (2) it's too late to fool around with uploading and 

positioning figures.   Can remedy later.)

The email capture follows.  As typical, read from the bottom
up.

Ken

From:     

Subject:        Re:
thoughts on registries, etc.

Date:   July 13, 2006 12:19:23 PM EDT

I concur with your distinction between global and groups.  It
also  

does a nice job of mentioning taxonomies.  You have captured the
two  

forms of global visibility that I would expect to see the  

architecture discuss.  While an "aggregate of information
expressed  

in many vocabularies and categorized using many taxonomies" is
likely  

to be the more prevalent type of visibility in a global SOA,  

significant efforts are being made for the GIG architecture to 

"mediate capabilities that enable discoveries across
vocabularies" as  

well as classification levels.

Danny

--- Ken Laskey <> wrote:

Danny,

Thanks for the quick feedback.  What I sent was somewhat of a 

ramble and a capture of thoughts without things completely worked 

out, without a clear idea of what points needed to be made, without 

a clear idea of how and/or where it eventually needs to be  

incorporated.  My following comments continue in that tradition
:-)

Global could certainly be looked at as a dynamic group of
groups.   

I am (and I'm sure most other people are too) uncertain to what 

extent there will be significant content generated specifically for 

global, so I'm not sure I'd characterize it exclusively as a group 

of groups.  However, that raises a possibly interesting  

distinction.  As a group of groups, global will be an aggregate
of  

information expressed in many vocabularies and categorized using 

many taxonomies (or other representations).  Thus, either a
global  

registry search will be akin to a search of the group(s) using that 

vocabulary and taxonomy (effectively, a search over a very small 

part of the entire registry content) or the global registry will 

have to incorporate significant mediation capabilities to enable 

discovery across vocabularies.  I think this could be a useful 

distinction between group and global and a driver for use of the 

global registry. Figuring out how it would be appropriate to  

express this will be a challenge and will require more thought.

Note, I think personal, group, and global somewhat align with  

simple, complex, and mediated, and those categories probably  

influenced my thinking but I was toying with concepts without

trying to specifically match anything else.  No matter what
the  

categorization, I think the boundaries may be fuzzy so, for  

example, three people can jointly maintain a personal catalog  

without fully being a group and three groups could work together 

without getting to global.  As we proceed I expect the
boundaries  

to either become more clear or get permanently fuzzy.

The initial focus on UDDI and Web services had a lot to do with the 

actual work discussion that got me to start writing this down. 
I  

agree that it needs to be expanded beyond UDDI but that is the 

prevalent straw man and somehow needs direct attention because I 

think the UDDI structure exacerbates the registry problem. 
Again,  

this was in no way meant to be complete and your comments are  

valid. Again more thought is needed both on scope and
presentation.

Ken

On Jul 12, 2006, at 3:06 AM, Danny Thornton wrote:

Hi Ken,

The personal, group, and global categories make sense within the 

context of your document.  I can see how group can always
imply  

some type of ownership domain. The question I ask myself is if 

global is another type of group.  If global is distinguished as
a  

dynamic ecosystem of groups, then that would make sense to
me.

 It would certainly be easy
to integrate personal, group, and  

global levels into the simple, complex, and mediated sections of 

Visibility.   I currently have one and two liner examples 

equivalent to the personal, group, and global examples. Your  

examples could be substituted for those one and two liner
examples.

The beginning of your document focuses on UDDI, WSDL, and Web  

Services.  I would also incorporate discussions about ebXML,
the  

Process Model, and repositories.  See

http://www.globalresponsesystems.org/portal/default/forums/
ForumsPortletWindow?op=showTopic&windowstate=maximized&t=9&mask=a

for my review of the standards
against the SOA RA.

You also touch on consistency between what is done now and what 

was done in the past and how that can be trusted to be true.  
I  

would also mention the trust model and the establishment of roots 

of trust between groups in a SOA.

Danny

--- Ken Laskey <> wrote:

Danny,

You are working the visibility piece and I've been thinking about 

different levels of resource cataloguing for visibility since I 

commented on your draft.  Interestingly, it brought together
some  

ideas I've been chewing on and the attached is a rambling  

capture. I'm not sure how this fits into the RA but I'd be  

interested in how this sounds to you and where it needs beefing 

up the most.

Thanks for any comments.

Ken



---

Ken Laskey

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone: 
703-983-7934

7515 Colshire
Drive                       
fax:        703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508

While working on a project for my day job, I cautioned against blind
recitation of the publish-find-bind mantra and was asked for an
alternative.  This followed our discussion of Danny's visibility
write-up and so I scratched down some thoughts and exchanged a few emails
with Danny for a sanity check.  Below is a capture of our exchange
and the attached (apologies for the length) are the ideas as they stand
after incorporating some (but not all) of the discussion.  

(Sorry for the Word attachment but (1) wasn't sure where to put it in the
wiki and (2) it's too late to fool around with uploading and positioning
figures.   Can remedy later.)

The email capture follows.  As typical, read from the bottom
up.

Ken

From:  


Subject: Re: thoughts on registries, etc.

Date: July 13, 2006 12:19:23 PM EDT

I concur with your distinction between global and groups.  It also
does a nice job of mentioning taxonomies.  You have captured the two
forms of global visibility that I would expect to see the architecture
discuss.  While an "aggregate of information expressed in many
vocabularies and categorized using many taxonomies" is likely to be
the more prevalent type of visibility in a global SOA, significant
efforts are being made for the GIG architecture to "mediate
capabilities that enable discoveries across vocabularies" as well as
classification levels.

Danny

--- Ken Laskey
<>
wrote:

Danny,

Thanks for the quick feedback.  What I sent was somewhat of a ramble
and a capture of thoughts without things completely worked out, without a
clear idea of what points needed to be made, without a clear idea of how
and/or where it eventually needs to be incorporated.  My following
comments continue in that tradition :-)

Global could certainly be looked at as a dynamic group of groups.  I
am (and I'm sure most other people are too) uncertain to what extent
there will be significant content generated specifically for global, so
I'm not sure I'd characterize it exclusively as a group of groups. 
However, that raises a possibly interesting distinction.  As a group
of groups, global will be an aggregate of information expressed in many
vocabularies and categorized using many taxonomies (or other
representations).  Thus, either a global registry search will be
akin to a search of the group(s) using that vocabulary and taxonomy
(effectively, a search over a very small part of the entire registry
content) or the global registry will have to incorporate significant
mediation capabilities to enable discovery across vocabularies.  I
think this could be a useful distinction between group and global and a
driver for use of the global registry. Figuring out how it would be
appropriate to express this will be a challenge and will require more
thought.

Note, I think personal, group, and global somewhat align with simple,
complex, and mediated, and those categories probably influenced my
thinking but I was toying with concepts without

trying to specifically match anything else.  No matter what the
categorization, I think the boundaries may be fuzzy so, for example,
three people can jointly maintain a personal catalog without fully being
a group and three groups could work together without getting to
global.  As we proceed I expect the boundaries to either become more
clear or get permanently fuzzy.

The initial focus on UDDI and Web services had a lot to do with the
actual work discussion that got me to start writing this down.  I
agree that it needs to be expanded beyond UDDI but that is the prevalent
straw man and somehow needs direct attention because I think the UDDI
structure exacerbates the registry problem.  Again, this was in no
way meant to be complete and your comments are valid. Again more thought
is needed both on scope and presentation.

Ken

On Jul 12, 2006, at 3:06 AM, Danny Thornton wrote:

Hi Ken,

The personal, group, and global categories make sense within the context
of your document.  I can see how group can always imply some type of
ownership domain. The question I ask myself is if global is another type
of group.  If global is distinguished as a dynamic ecosystem of
groups, then that would make sense to me.

 It would certainly be easy
to integrate personal, group, and global levels into the simple, complex,
and mediated sections of Visibility.   I currently have one and
two liner examples equivalent to the personal, group, and global
examples. Your examples could be substituted for those one and two liner
examples.

The beginning of your document focuses on UDDI, WSDL, and Web
Services.  I would also incorporate discussions about ebXML, the
Process Model, and repositories.  See

http://www.globalresponsesystems.org/portal/default/forums/
ForumsPortletWindow?op=showTopic&windowstate=maximized&t=9&mask=a

for my review of the standards
against the SOA RA.

You also touch on consistency between what is done now and what was done
in the past and how that can be trusted to be true.   I would
also mention the trust model and the establishment of roots of trust
between groups in a SOA.

Danny

--- Ken Laskey
<>
wrote:

Danny,

You are working the visibility piece and I've been thinking about
different levels of resource cataloguing for visibility since I commented
on your draft.  Interestingly, it brought together some ideas I've
been chewing on and the attached is a rambling capture. I'm not sure how
this fits into the RA but I'd be interested in how this sounds to you and
where it needs beefing up the most.

Thanks for any comments.

Ken

Content-Type: application/octet-stream;

        
x-mac-type=5738424E;

        
x-unix-mode=0644;

        
x-mac-creator=4D535744;

        
name=triangle thoughts.doc

Content-Disposition: attachment;

        
filename="triangle thoughts.doc"

---

Ken Laskey

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone: 
703-983-7934

7515 Colshire
Drive                       
fax:        703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508

--

    
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  /   Ken
Laskey                                                               
\

 |    MITRE Corporation, M/S H305   
phone:  703-983-7934   |

 |    7515 Colshire
Drive                   
fax:      703-983-1379   |

  \   McLean VA
22102-7508                                             
/

   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------