I think we have to beware the "everything is a service" trap.
When I talked about service hosts I meant the entity responsible for
ensuring that a service is made available, which can be different to
the entity responsible for the service itself. The service host may
be invisible to a service consumer, but is still a stakeholder in the
service.
Similarly, a service that offers mediation may well be a service.
However, it has a stake in a different service: the ones that it is
capable of mediating.
Frank
On Aug 24, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
> Frank,
>
> Your additions could be characterized as infrastructure. Is this
> in scope for the RA?
>
> Besides that mediation and discovery will be accessed as services.
> Other than noting some services can be considered vital
> infrastructure, aren't they just services? Does the provider or
> consumer of discovery really differ from the provider or consumer
> of weather?
>
> Ken
>
> On Aug 24, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Francis McCabe wrote:
>
>> +1
>> And good for Reston!
>>
>> I think that the judge had it wrong. Even if the trees had no
>> legal standing, people do. And the loss of trees can result in a
>> loss to people in the neighborhood. I suspect that that ruling
>> would not survive an appeal.
>>
>> BTW: I am not a lawyer, so the above is just an opinion...
>>
>> I think that you need to expand the scope of stakeholders a little:
>>
>> -- service hosts
>> -- service mediators (brokers, etc.)
>> -- service discovery agencies
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
>>
>>> From the ftf, we had
>>> - direct participants
>>> -- providers
>>> -- consumers
>>> - regulatory authorities
>>> - non-participants (innocent bystanders/"victims")
>>>
>>> My initial question to the list was whether the direct
>>> participants were *service* providers and *service* consumers or
>>> whether there were other providers (and by extension, other
>>> consumers and participants).
>>>
>>> From the discussion so far, I would say the ftf list covers the
>>> territory and the direct participants are indeed always dealing
>>> with services. However, the non-participants can include anyone
>>> (and possibly anything) else, and their identification is context
>>> dependent.
>>>
>>> An anecdote that has some relevance:
>>> Last week a judge ruled against a neighborhood group who was
>>> trying to block construction of the new Yankee Stadium. The
>>> neighborhood group said the loss of the nearby park and trees
>>> would have a devastating effects on the community. The judge
>>> ruled that the trees had no legal standing. My daughter's
>>> immediate response was, "They do in Reston!" Now I live in
>>> Reston, one of the original planned communities, and here you
>>> have to make sure your basketball backboards are the right
>>> color. Notwithstanding those philosophical battles, one of the
>>> differences in development in Reston is they generally try to
>>> save the existing trees rather than clear cutting and just
>>> plowing everything under. The result is actually quite nice. In
>>> any case, context will often define the most relevant (for
>>> modeling purposes) non-participatory stakeholders.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----------------------
>>> 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
>
