Agreed. I suspect that it such would, indeed, be the case, and
probably in many more domains as well.
Ciao,
Rex
At 3:40 PM -0400 4/10/05, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
><Quote>
>My position is that we are describing IT Service-Oriented Architecture,
>not, for instance, a more traditional Plumbing or Aerospace Plumbing
>Service-Oriented Architecture.
></Quote>
>
>Additional point: If, to carry out its mission and goals, an aerospace
>plumbing operation* could function more efficiently by being supported
>by systems and technologies that are architected according to
>service-oriented principles, then I believe that such an aerospace
>plumbing operation can benefit from the work that we are doing.
>
>*using "operation" in business operation terms, not WSDL terms
>
>Joe
>
>Joseph Chiusano
>Booz Allen Hamilton
>Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:]
>> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 10:49 AM
>> To: Matthew MacKenzie; Gregory A. Kohring
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Definition of "Service Consumer"
>>
>> If by '"rigid" you mean UML, then, notwithstanding the
>> implicit agreement in the positions of my last post and
>> Matt's post, then I am in favor of a narrow definition within
>> the scope and context of IT per se. And, I do think we need
>> to either vote on or gain clear consensus for each our terms,
>> no matter how few there are, but in respect of how few they
>> should be and I definitely prefer the fewest possible to do
>> the job on a necessary and sufficient basis. So far I think
>> we are getting close to necessary, but remain quite a
>> distance from sufficient. To put it in Einsteinian aphorism,
>> we have it nearly as simple as possible, but I think that is
>> too simple to satisfy the "simple enough" test. So far I
>> think we are arriving at a necessary but insufficient level
>> of definition.
>>
>> My position is that we are describing IT Service-Oriented
>> Architecture, not, for instance, a more traditional Plumbing
>> or Aerospace Plumbing Service-Oriented Architecture. Nor are
>> we describing a First Order Philosophical Principle.
>>
>> In the information technology context, given the parameters
>> of fluid dynamics within the temperature ranges that support
>> human life as we know it, we would certainly have a welcome
>> ontological (taxonomical actually, IMO) slot for such
>> plumbing SOAs as the examples offered.
>> Gowever, those taxonomies would only come into play one or
>> two levels of abstraction below the Reference Model. However,
>> semantically and ontologically, I think we need to make our
>> work clearly applicable in an easily and clearly
>> comprehensible way, exactly as expressed in the
>> charter: for a non-technical audience.
>>
>> I just want our work to be fully grounded as opposed to
>> non-normatively tethered to the concrete. I don't see a hard
>> and fast separation between abstract and concrete that
>> doesn't flirt with irrelevance or court being dismissed out
>> of hand by either the commercial or academic communities.
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Rex
>>
>> At 9:08 AM -0400 4/8/05, Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>> >Personally, I'm not game for votes on individual
>> definitions. I just
>> >want to reiterate my assertion that "invoke" is too narrow a
>> word here,
>> >given the discussion that took place originally over "requester" vs.
>> >"consumer". I'm still not convinced such a role is even
>> required to be
>> >defined in this document unless the consensus is to model
>> the RM in a
>> >"rigid" modeling language.
>> >
>> >-matt
>> >On 8-Apr-05, at 2:34 AM, Gregory A. Kohring wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Here is a summary of yesterdays proposals for defining the term
>> >>"Service Consumer":
>> >>
>> >>1) Software that invokes an instance,
>> >>
>> >>2) Software that uses a service instance,
> > >>
>> >>3) An agent that wishes to interact with a service,
>> >>
>> >>4) An agent that interacts with a service in order to
>> >> achieve a goal,
>> >>
>> >>5) An entity that binds with a service is playing the
>> >> role of service consumer,
>> >>
>> >>where the suggested definition of "agent" was:
>> >>
>> >>1) An Agent is a software program acting on behalf of an owner.
>> >>
>> >>(By substituting this definition in some of the above
>> suggestions you
>> >>can come up with yet more definitions of service consumer.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Now, just out of curiosity, how do we proceed from here?
>> >>Do we vote on one of the suggested definitions? (This implies we
>> >>should vote on the definitions of all the terms to be used in the
>> >>final document.) Or do we leave it up to the editors to pick the
>> >>definition which best fits the style of writing being used
>> within the
>> >>final document?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>-- Greg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >>============================================================
>> ==========
>> >>G.A. Kohring
>> >>C&C Research Laboratories, NEC Europe Ltd.
>> >>============================================================
>> ==========
>> >>
>> >--
>> >Matthew MacKenzie
>> >
>> >* Read my blog! http://blog.tekni.ca/
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rex Brooks
>> President, CEO
>> Starbourne Communications Design
>> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>> Berkeley, CA 94702
>> Tel: 510-849-2309
>>
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309
