RE: can the process model of a service use actions other than in action model

I would like to comment two points in this post.

1.	Process Model of a single Actions covers all business functions that do not require more than one action. This is very good but we have explicitly say this ( like  a Process Model comprises one or many Actions) in the text. 

What I am trying to address here is that vendors or developers should not put a process every where, even into the cases where just one actions is required; process  - is a serious overhead in implementation and the standards should not be blamed for such directive

Example: a function is a calculation of the credit risk. Here is not process: data in, calculation, data out. At the same time it is a regular business function of great importance (considering the latest credit crisis).

2.	I still not in favour of proposed (Kens message on 27 May) definition of Capability. 

My last argument: capability is popular word, especially after SOA RM definition. People use it not that strictly as mentioned in the proposed version but as it is articulated in the RM  as a RWE or as A WAY to the RWE. If we take capability=resource, we have to allow REST Web Services to claim they are SOA services while they are just interface connectivity solution which does not have many attributes of a service in RA spirit( like EC, social effects, etc.)

( In short, REST provides HTTP-based access to the resource which has its own URI; I am not comfortable with the REST idea that anything in the world is a resource and access to the resource(i.e.REST call) is the service; I think this is an incorrect and inadequate understanding/modelling of the world)

-	Michael