Re: [soa-rm-ra] stakeholders summary

Point well taken.  My initial question was aimed at identifying the minimum set (but no fewer) to cover the RA scope.

Ken

On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:40 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:

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

 

 

 

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Ken Laskey
 
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
 
7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:        703-983-1379
 
McLean VA 22102-7508
  

smime.p7s