Actually, within the RA, we tied resource to ownership. So, the RA
notion of resource is somewhat richer than the W3C's notion.
On May 26, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Duane Nickull wrote:
> According to our definition (lifted from W3C) anything with an ID is
> a resource. Doens’t exclude much does it?
>
> ;-)
>
>
> On 26/05/08 6:35 PM, "Ken Laskey" <> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I would say the capability is a resource. I would also
>> strongly suggest we reserve the term capability for that resource
>> that the service accesses and not introduce semantic confusion by
>> using the term for other purposes. One benefit of this restriction
>> is we avoid having to distinguish between capability and
>> functionality. Also, I think this is consistent with the idea of
>> capability-based acquisition, where you buy a capability that gives
>> you desired effects.
>>
>> I would go beyond what Michael says below and say the consumer is
>> most interested in the RWEs. In the temperature conversion
>> example, we get the consumer's attention by the general statement
>> (and maybe associated keywords) that says temperature conversion,
>> but it is the RWE that the service will return temperature in
>> degrees Centigrade rather than degrees Kelvin that is important.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>> On May 26, 2008, at 11:50 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> Here are two questions that are in line with Danny's and Frank's
>>> messages:
>>>
>>> 1) if functionality is what is discussed and captured before
>>> service inception and capability is what is captured after service
>>> inception, then what the service consumer is interested in, first
>>> of all? Functionality or capability realized via RWE?
>>> - My answer is capability (what service can provide, and only
>>> then - how). The Service Description has to answer two questions
>>> (among others): what [capability] service provides and how to use
>>> the service to get to this capability [functionality]
>>>
>>> 2) A capability in RM (and in Kens explanation) sounds like a
>>> resource. In SOA eco-systems, how a consumer might even know about
>>> a Capability/resource other than through the services?
>>>
>>> Since service interface does not necessary reflect the capability,
>>> the only place left is the Service Description. If Capability and
>>> service Functionality are synonyms (according to Danny), then I am
>>> fine. But in this case, Capability does not exist w/o service
>>> functionality IN SOA ( outside SOA, it is out of the observation
>>> scope). Service functionality describes accessible Capability
>>> together with particular access results RWE.
>>>
>>> Frank has mentioned I agree with this. But, I find it hard --
>>> using the language of WSDL
>>> and RMI -- to capture the notion of business services or business
>>> functionality. Exactly, Frank, you are not alone in this because
>>> it is impossible to capture business behaviour, business
>>> capability and functionality and, finally, business RWE in the
>>> language which does not see further than technical interface
>>> WSDL, RMI, IDL, COM, etc.
>>>
>>> - Michael
>>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ken Laskey
>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
>> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
>> McLean VA 22102-7508
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> **********************************************************************
> "Speaking only for myself"
> Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.
> Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
> Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
> My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
> Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html
> **********************************************************************
