IF In summary service ecosystem is limited to service interactions not service implementation THEN why we need it at all? Why interaction between interfaces like WSDL-to-WSDL is not enough? I feel a spirit of T. Erl here... (but it is almost 7 months till Halloween, isn't it? or this is a Day of Fools joke?)
because what we gona do now with willingness (hidden intent), with actions of the consumer in preparation to calling the service, with service's actions in response to the invocation call, with shared and sharable RWE (that do not include interaction with service but rather the use of the service execution outcomes)?
-----Original Message-----
From: Lublinsky, Boris <>
To: <>; <>; <>; <>; <>
Sent: Sat, Apr 2, 2011 4:24 pm
Subject: RE: understanding of SOA ecosystem scope
It’
s close but not exact.
50 · Use of services that are distributed across ownership boundaries;
This one is way to generic – it can apply to anything
51 · people and systems interacting with each other, also across ownership
boundaries;
In summary service ecosystem is limited to service interactions
not service implementation
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 7:06 AM
To: ; ; ;
Subject: understanding of SOA ecosystem scope
the last FULL version (17 an) of RAF stated:
the SOA-RAF makes key
49 assumptions that SOA-based systems involve:
50 · Use of resources that are distributed across ownership boundaries;
51 · people and systems interacting with each other, also across ownership
52 boundaries;
53 · security, management and governance that are similarly
distributed across
54 ownership boundaries; and
55 · interaction between people and systems that is primarily through
the exchange of
56 messages with reliability that is appropriate for the intended
uses and purposes.
57 Even in apparently homogenous structures, such as within a
single organization,
58 different groups and departments nonetheless often have
ownership boundaries
59 between them. This reflects organizational reality as well as
the real motivations and
60 desires of the people running those organizations.
61 Such an environment as described above is an ecosystem and,
specifically in the
62 context of SOA-based systems, is a SOA ecosystem.
(I have not found explicit definition of SOA ecosystem in the
Peter/Chris definition spreadsheets)
The things is red are, IMO, the reasons of my understanding that a
SOA ecosystem has full visibility into everything it includes. This relates to
the logical and functional aspects of the implementaiton of the service. For
example, to list just a few, interactions with non-service resources, interactions with other services engaged in the
controlled combinations (orchestration and choreography), security controls
that contribute to the business trust between services.
I'd like to ask for your comments
on whether this understanding of SOA ecosystem in RAF matches yours
(though I know that Boris disagrees with me already).
Cheers,
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Bashioum, Christopher D <>
To: Laskey, Ken <>; 'Lublinsky, Boris'
<>; <>;
<>
Sent: Sat, Apr 2, 2011 3:42 am
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
This is interesting. Turns out that management determines
what it needs, but monitoring may only be able to monitor primitives that don’t
map directly to management needs. There will likely be an algorithm (or
two or three) that combines monitoring primitives into information that is
helpful for management decisions.
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 4:20 PM
To: 'Lublinsky, Boris'; ;
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this
week
Is there a management capability that applies to the existence
and adequacy of monitoring? That is what I had in mind.
Ken
From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 3:57 PM
To: Laskey, Ken; ; ;
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this
week
Monitoring is a means – you can’t manage what you do not measure
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 2:20 PM
To: ;
;
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this
week
I think the point is monitoring is a required
manageability. Otherwise, you don’t have the information to do the other
manageability.
Ken
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 12:03 PM
To: Laskey, Ken; ;
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this
week
Now is my tern to follow the discusstion and figure out what is
sold ( and whome to).
Will come back with my comments (if any) later. At the mean time,
I can only point that means cannot drive the subject: monitoring cannot drive management - it has to be the other way around
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Laskey <>
To: 'Lublinsky, Boris' <>; ;
Sent: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 4:00 am
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Sold!
From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:59 PM
To: Laskey, Ken; 'Lublinsky, Boris'; ;
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Actually this brings one more manageability, that Michael does not have – usage manageability and metering. I will buy this one
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 9:57 PM
To: 'Lublinsky, Boris'; ;
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
I concede on the example but I’m still inclined to think monitoring needs to be broader than invocation events.
Too tired to be more creative.
Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:52 PM
To: Laskey, Ken; ; ;
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Ken,
Michael already has network management, that will react at you situation number 1. So I am still not buying events thingy
From: Ken Laskey [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 9:45 PM
To: ; ;
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
1. I think events have to be more than invocations. A service consuming a lot of bandwidth may be an event that requires a response from management. Deciding the response likely falls under other management but the monitoring itself is needed. If everything relates to an invocation, then maybe service invocation is sufficient, but I don’t think you want to go there. I’d stick with monitoring.
2. As you list things below to fall under Combination or Composability, the list becomes too diverse and has no focus for what is really being managed. Everything requires some degree of management and when we decide something needs to specifically be called out, it needs to be clear why the SOA ecosystem requires something beyond traditional management.
3. I think all aspects of performance should be in one place. Otherwise, it seems like you’re splitting hair to break some out and not others.
Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kenneth Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:44 AM
To: ;
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Boris,
I think that our task is not to set a status of "disagree" but to find a solution to resolve the disagreement.
1. About Event Manageability. It seems to me that "service invocation manageability" might work because I certainly do not want to manage events that may be even outside of SOA ecosystem. Also, I do distinguish (despite of EDA vision) between the event and reporting of this event. A consideration I use is this: if nobody (in given realm) listens to/monitors the event, this does not mean that the event has not happened; one event may cause another event - a sad example: an earthquake causes a tsunami - and, if we discard the initial event as non-existed but we recognise the caused event, we have to deal with things without reasons, out of the blue, which is not natural and unacceptable to me.
So, an events selection manageability is a sort of a view inside and outside the SOA ecosystem for the service invocation triggers.
2. I do respect IBM’s viewpoint but they proofed they are not very fast with changes and they still take SOA service as a Web Service in several of their even modern applications and papers while others (e.g. Dr. Marc Fiammante) are quite in synch with what we do in OASIS.
So, a service, even a composite or aggregate service depends only on functionality it needs from others. Considering an explicit contracts and a possibility of the trusted realm, a service (and its implementation like a process) may not and do not need to know who actually provides required functionality.
By Combination or Composability Management I mean (but may be did not use proper words to articulate) a management of service capabilities to be used in the combinations or to combine others for providing solution for common task. This, particularly, includes: special relationship between business services and Data Services / Data Access Layer, enforcement of policies related to the granularity of interfaces, management of information stores/repositories for meta-data, management of the processes and procedures – development and run-time – that result in new service combinations (which may include as integration as testing aspects), and so on. I hope, you’ve got the picture. Configuration management may also take place among others in this domain but, IMO, it is certainly not the major one.
3. The last one – management of business performances – do require and use SLA and SLA management but the letter is not always a visible part of the former. This is why I put them separately: the SLA management can still be provisioned at many different levels (including pure technical ones) while management of business performances may be more laid around business KPI.
What do you think?
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Lublinsky, Boris <>
To: <>; <>; <>
Sent: Thu, Mar 31, 2011 12:25 am
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Do you see events manageability as service invocation manageability? I do not think I see it this way
On everything else,
Let’s see we agree to disagree
What you call composability I call dependence – see IBM’s service model – a service can have both interfaces and dependencies
For me also, business performance requires SLA
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 5:18 PM
To: ;
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Boris, at a glance:
· Event Monitoring Manageability is mandatory IMO because it is not about notifications but about managing selection of events that trigger the services.
· I do not understand "Dependency manageability" because service do not depend on other services; instead, they depend on functionality of an arbitrary trusted provider (IBM Dynamic Process Edition allowed having a 'basket' of potential providers where the process picked up the actual one when needed on the fly 9not a discovery mechanism); no end-points were configured up-front). This is not a programmatic dependency, which many would read into.
· Combination or Composability Management is about managing combinations of services that might be realised w/ or w/o configuration, i.e. via design (composition) or orchestration (aggregation), by both service provider and consumer. The fact that existing BPM tools require configuration does not mean that they are the only possible ways of doing combinations. Also, do not forget about business domain where a service combination may requires just a new organisational chart :-)
· Business Performance and Service Level Agreement are very different things, e.g. the former may have monetary expression while the latter - pure technical expression. Also, the best technical expressions (measurements and matrix) do not necessary lead to the best monetary expressions.
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Lublinsky, Boris <>
To: <>; <>
Sent: Wed, Mar 30, 2011 5:58 pm
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Here is my manageability proposal:
· Lifecycle Manageability
· Configuration manageability
o Dependency manageability
· Policies Manageability
· Contracts manageability
· Business Performance manageability
o SLA Manageability
Event Monitoring Manageability is really about reporting and should not be there
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 5:52 AM
To:
Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Management Model section after comments of this week
Folks,
I have incorporated all comments and chnages into attached document. In some places, I have repeated the text (in different font) just to save and show the comments that I responeded insted but didn't change the text.
I am not sure what tactics we prefer now - to go through all left comments together in the meeting or for me to resolve each comment with particular author (in some cases I disagree with the comment, however).
Cheers,
- Michael
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.
