Well, could not resist this one ...
In my mind the EC is the 'beaten path' that must exist for there to
be meaningful interaction between service participants. On that
interpretation, I agree with both Ken and Michael.
However, I also saw that, in the RM, the EC represented all the
'gorp' needed to establish the interaction. Necessary but distracting
if gone into in too much detail.
From this PoV, I believe that a key function of the RA is to unpack
the EC sufficiently to explicate how you might realize a SOA. Hence,
you will not find much direct mention of the EC in the RA: it is
pervasive.
Frank
On Sep 24, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Ken Laskey wrote:
> Michael,
>
> You nailed it all the way!
>
> Both technical (e.g. what are the communications protocols) and
> business (e.g. if I ask for a value and there is a US and a
> separate UK way of calculating the value, which one is chosen)
> aspects go into the execution context. At one point in the RA
> write-up, I started thinking of its relationship to the log of an
> interaction and had some thoughts of the log as a capture of the
> execution context. There may be several decision points that go
> into sustaining an interaction, but if the same interaction is
> required later, you could want to make sure you execute the same
> conclusions and not re-ask the questions that might lead to
> different answers.
>
> I have a very intuitive feel for the execution context (one I know
> Frank doesn't share ;-) ) so I welcome questions that help clarify
> it and find its right place in the RA.
>
> Ken
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Poulin, Michael wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I have another question (which is, probably, not the right time to
>> ask since the period of comments for 0.2 version is closed... but
>> I will try):
>>
>> I've just realised that the RA interprets 'service execution
>> context' from RM as "Within the RM, the execution context stood
>> for all the aspects of an information system that are needed to
>> facilitate interaction. A large part of the goals of the Reference
>> Architecture is to show how interaction is realized". Plus,
>> "Descriptions of the provider and consumer are the essential
>> building blocks for establishing the execution context of an
>> interaction." That is, it is a communication context.
>>
>> In another place: "The execution context can be thought of as a
>> series of answers to the questions of why would the participants
>> be willing to interact and whether such interaction is possible",
>> i.e. one can assume that the context may include business
>> conditions/context as a factor of willingness to interact. This
>> corresponds to the references to the policies in the RM's
>> definition (policies, which may apply as to the communication as
>> to the execution on the provider side and be agreed in the Service
>> Contract).
>>
>> I have read the RM's definition of the execution context as both -
>> information AND business context of execution of the service
>> rather than just communication information system context. For
>> example, assume we have a service for calculating a fund price. We
>> have corporate divisions in the US and in the UK working with
>> different funds but in the same fund category. Besides different
>> policies, the calculation method is different (in the business
>> definition) in the US and the UK. That is, the service execution
>> context from business perspective is different. So, before reusing
>> the service even in the same information infrastructure, it is
>> better to, at least, re-test it even if no one bit of its
>> implementation is changed.
>>
>> I think we have to clear state what is meant by the service
>> execution context in the RA.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Michael Poulin
>>
>> Head of Business Analysis and Web Architecture
>>
>> Senior Manager, Web Delivery
>>
>> Fidelity Investments International
>>
>> ' +44-173-783-6038
>> *
>> 8 http://www.fidelity.co.uk/
>>
>> Important: Fidelity Investments International (Reg. No.1448245),
>> Fidelity Investment Services Limited (Reg. No. 2016555), Fidelity
>> Pensions Management (Reg. No. 2015142) and Financial
>> Administration Services Limited (Reg. No. 1629709, a Fidelity
>> Group company) are all registered in England and Wales, are
>> authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Services
>> Authority and have their registered offices at Oakhill House, 130
>> Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough, Tonbridge, Kent TN11 9DZ. Tel 01732
>> 361144. Fidelity only gives information on products and does not
>> give investment advice to private clients based on individual
>> circumstances. Any comments or statements made are not necessarily
>> those of Fidelity. The information transmitted is intended only
>> for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
>> confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in
>> error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
>> computer. All e-mails sent from or to Fidelity may be subject to
>> our monitoring procedures. Direct link to Fidelity’s website -
>> http://www.fidelity-international.com/world/index.html
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
>
