I think of the highest level of Enterprise SOA as having three
sub-functions
- The Service Infrastructure--The Service Infrastructure provides
functions that enable and support the use of Composite Applications in
production and the governance functions.
- The Composite Application Lifecycle--Composite Application Lifecycle
(CAL) is the Business Process and Composite Application Modeling,
Assembly, and Deployment Environment.
- Service Development--Service Development provides activities and
functions and enabling and supporting the creation and testing of
Service Components.
The Internet SOA uses a very minor subset of the Service Infrastructure
and the CAL. COTS Service Component Suppliers use Service Development
to create Service Components for "sale."
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Francis McCabe [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:41 PM
To: Ken Laskey
Cc:
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] stakeholders summary
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
>
