Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization - contract2policy, policy0contract

So would an example be that my company signs a contract covering the full range of Microsoft products and they then issue a policy that only Zune players are allowed on the premises?  No one outside those involved need to know about the contract but the issuing of the policy follows as a seemingly disconnected action.

Ken

On Apr 13, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:

This is a completely separate issue. Any time you have any public semantics intermixing with private semantics you have to be careful. This is not a reason to toss out contracts referring to policies or vice versa.
In the case of a policy arising from a contract, it is sufficient that the owner of the policy is enforcing it; third parties need not know why the policy is being enforced, they only need to know what policies are enforced (and they need to decide whether or not such policies are acceptable to them. 

In general, there are many many times an actor's public actions (such as promulgating a policy) arise from private considerations. There is nothing special about contracts

On Apr 13, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Mike Poulin wrote:

 Frank, 
if you agree that service contract is a private agreement between service provider and one or several service consumers, then let's assume we have created a public policy referred to this contract. Such policy may be used and reused, and exists as unconditional one-side rule to be enforced onto others, let say, by the service provider. I am as a service consumer have to adhere to this policy. However, the policy contains a restricted element - a reference to the private contract. I am as a consumed do not accept such policy and require disclosure ( I can do this because I am who is paying for the service use).

Can you imagine what a mess we can create if we allow public policies to refer to private contracts?

- Michael
 
 ----- Original Message -----
 From: "Francis McCabe" 
 To: "Ken Laskey" 
 Cc: "Mike Poulin" , "James Odell" , "" 
 Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
 Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:12:19 -0700
 
 Either way, I see no reason for such a restriction

On Apr 12, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:

I will reread but I thought the insistence was policies not referring to contracts.

On Apr 12, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Francis McCabe wrote:

I do not believe that we ever signed up for Michaels insistence on contracts not referring to policies. I for one do not.

On Apr 12, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Ken Laskey wrote:

It appears we agree on the specifics for policies and contracts, and indeed did discuss much of this before.  I'm wondering if something critical got lost in the last Policy section shuffle that eld to the current text.

Ken

On Apr 12, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Mike Poulin wrote:

As I recall, a year ago I  initiated a discussion here about relationship between Policies and Contracts. Now, it looks like James has picked up my position. I said that time that: 
1) contracts (due to their private matter)  may not refer to each other while policies may and effectively do
2) contracts may include more things than just policies or references to policies, e.g. a selection of a subset of services interfaces derived from the service description. This information is not really a policy though it may be expressed in the form of policy assertions
3) there may be different types of policies - for the service development and for the run-time. The latter must be mentioned in the service contracts as well as in the service descriptions (otherwise the consumer is not obliged to be compliant with non-specified policies), the former does not need such mentioning but they might be included into development tools and design controls.

In any case, Policies AND Contracts deserve much more attention in SOA RM.

- Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Odell" 
To: 
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:46:06 -0400

Hi all,

After yet another reading of the SOA-RA (Foundation?) and having sat through the recent spate of meetings, I have the following say about the reorganization of the SOA-RA:

Overall, I think that the chapters and topics are sequenced in a coherent and logical manner.  Perhaps, it is because I read it too many times now.  But, I don’t think so.
Also, I understand the need to minimize the amount of work needed on the SOA-RA at this point in its development.  We need to get it released for public comment — without compromising quality and understandability, of course.
Having said this, the only thing that bothers me enough to suggest a reorganizational change is the area of Policies:

1)  Policies, in general, are depicted in document far earlier than they are finally addressed (by 40-50 pages).  Since policies — IMO — are an important ingredient in the SOA-RA, I would like to see them addressed earlier.  (My personal opinion is that policies are not mentioned anywhere near the amount that they should. For example, they are used in events, composition of services, roles, and organizations.  However, since this would involve additions to the current document, I will not push this)

2) I strongly dislike grouping the entire topic with contracts.  While policies are used for contracts, Policy is a standalone concept — which neither depends on nor is used solely with Contract.  (Even the OMG and W3C treat policies as a separate notion.)  Why is this reasonable?  Because policies are used in a variety of situations — only one of which is contracts.  By placing Policies in lock step with (and almost subordinate to) with Contracts is not appropriate, IMO.  

3) My suggestion: separate Policies and Contracts into two distinct subsections (e.g., 4.4 and 4.5).  

In short, this would provide clarity for the notion of Policy and not require much change to the current document.

All the best,

Jim

--
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 >>
  
 
 -- 
 Be Yourself @ mail.com!
 Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
 Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!

 

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